DC Superheroes 2015 Rumors & Discussions

[BrickSev]

The Star Wars logo sells itself. I don't think that DC's does.

Well if someone does not find the DC universe attractive enough to buy the set I doubt an additional Batman would. Just my two cents, of course

[Numbuh1Nerd]

The Batmobile turning into the Batwing would really take me out of it. That's such a toy company thing to do. It's like if they gave Ben Affleck a Sonar Suit or something too.

I'm pretty confident that it was the Batwing, though. I don't know why any other jet would be attacking small-time criminals like that, and it doesn't look like anything the military would use anyway. I could see the "FALSE GOD" Superman statue just being a regular Superman minifigure in gray or silver with that painted across the chest. Seems unlikely, but it would make a rad exclusive.

[SoupOrFishOil]

Well if someone does not find the DC universe attractive enough to buy the set I doubt an additional Batman would. Just my two cents, of course

Not so much a Batman clone army as his gadgets, costumes, vehicles, and villains. Unlike most other DC characters, he has both good set potential and a really strong brand. It isn't just another Keaton Batman that was thrown into the Justice League sets, but a spacesuit, a mech, a Robin variant, and a submarine. Yeah, it's repetitive for us, but a lot of kids aren't going to be collecting the entire line, especially over four years.

Star Wars has become something that is just as much about intergalactic battles, sci-fi armies, cool spaceships, and obscure aliens as it is its stronger characters. Basically, the brand is built around an entire world. The world is iconic, and the world sells. Of course faces like Yoda and Vader are going to be more coveted than Nien Numb or Jedi Bob, so the popular characters are dispersed accordingly, often to sell the larger sets. As for the DC Universe, only Gotham is really iconic. Maybe if WB manages to establish Wonder Woman's mythic realms, Aquaman's Atlantis, and Green Lantern's emotional spectrum into popular worlds of their own, there will be more potential, but even as someone who is optimistic about the MoS-verse, I don't really see that happening.

[BrickSev]

Not so much a Batman clone army as his gadgets, costumes, vehicles, and villains. Unlike most other DC characters, he has both good set potential and a really strong brand. It isn't just another Keaton Batman that was thrown into the Justice League sets, but a spacesuit, a mech, a Robin variant, and a submarine. Yeah, it's repetitive for us, but a lot of kids aren't going to be collecting the entire line, especially over four years.

Star Wars has become something that is just as much about intergalactic battles, sci-fi armies, cool spaceships, and obscure aliens as it is its stronger characters. Basically, the brand is built around an entire world. The world is iconic, and the world sells. Of course faces like Yoda and Vader are going to be more coveted than Nien Numb or Jedi Bob, so the popular characters are dispersed accordingly, often to sell the larger sets. As for the DC Universe, only Gotham is really iconic. Maybe if WB manages to establish Wonder Woman's mythic realms, Aquaman's Atlantis, and Green Lantern's emotional spectrum into popular worlds of their own, there will be more potential, but even as someone who is optimistic about the MoS-verse, I don't really see that happening.

Well, "Yes and no". I explain

You mentioned the cinematic universe and from that point of view I agree with you but most of Lego DC sets are not based on movies but on comics and the list of iconic features from the DC multiverse included much more than Batman. For example the centre of the whole DC multiverse is Superman. Everything affecting the DC multiverse on a large scale often, if not always, involves Superman.

The "specialist" versions of a given character are actually more interesting for collectors than kids. Beside the inclusion of an "iconic" characters is not the only reason of a set success. It's well known the case of never seen before characters who became best sellers. Let's not forget it is said Bionicle saved Lego during the crisis.

Anyway, personally I was not complaining. I bought all the 2015 DC sets and if I found the "Batman-centric" thing a problem I wouldn't

I think pairing Aquaman with the Bat-submarine is actually a good idea, since it is actually a scene from the New 52 ( it's part of the Justice League "Throne of Atlantis" collection)

The problem, just a little one, is Batman tends to steal the scene to characters who are supposed to be the "star" of the set (Gorilla Grodd goes Bananas, set it one of them).

The presence of "specialist" versions of a character does not conflict with the "they are making a Clone Army of him" argument. There are a lot of specialist Clone Troopers after all

Talking about Star Wars, it's obvious the most "iconic" characters appears more frequently (even though it's not always the case. See Palplatine, for example) but none of them is present in 3 out 5 sets from a single wave.

I agree with you on the fact the Star Wars universe's vastness offer a great potential. It's a whole Galaxy, after all. But DC comics cover a multiverse! It's even vaster. It's not just Gotham like you said. They make sets not just from the movies.

You may say the "multiverse" is not well known by the "standard consumer" but, honestly, a well made set will sell even if it features something unknown or even knew. Sometimes it attracts even more interest

However, like I said, I was not complaining or saying Lego did it wrong. I really like the DC sets and Batman's presence, or over-presence, didn't ruin my interest in those sets

[super curry max]

havnt been keeping up with lego news in the last few months. have there been any reveals for future single figures like the superboy in the target cube set?

[Master_Data]

havnt been keeping up with lego news in the last few months. have there been any reveals for future single figures like the superboy in the target cube set?

There's Lightning Lad who will come in a similar cube to be released in the summer. There's also the Trickster, but we don't have any details as to his release. Probably a book coming out later this year. You should also check out the LEGO Dimensions thread- there are some single figures being released for the game, but they aren't exclusive.

[Numbuh1Nerd]

havnt been keeping up with lego news in the last few months. have there been any reveals for future single figures like the superboy in the target cube set?

There was a Lightning Lad leaked awhile ago, but we haven't heard anything else on that since. Trickster's coming to a book or something, based on leaked photos of the fig in that sort of packaging. That's it, though.

EDIT: Darn! Beat me to it!

Edited April 20, 2015 by Numbuh1Nerd

[psqidexslizer248]

havnt been keeping up with lego news in the last few months. have there been any reveals for future single figures like the superboy in the target cube set?

Besides Lightning Lad and Trickster as mentioned above, there will also likely be at least one exclusive figure for SDCC this July.

[SoupOrFishOil]

Well, "Yes and no". I explain

You mentioned the cinematic universe and from that point of view I agree with you but most of Lego DC sets are not based on movies but on comics and the list of iconic features from the DC multiverse included much more than Batman. For example the centre of the whole DC multiverse is Superman. Everything affecting the DC multiverse on a large scale often, if not always, involves Superman.

Oh, sorry if that wasn't clear of me. Let me explain in more detail: Sometimes people assume that when the movies come out, it will generate more of an interest in characters aside from Batman, and I listed Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Green Lantern because they inhabit pretty distinctive fantasy worlds which would be great to explore both on screen and in brick. But since MOS was divisive and the BVS trailer has made it clear that it is going to explore some darker themes, it seems surefire that the movies will not have the same kid/family appeal that the Marvel ones do, so there won't be much interest among the target audience.

I could be wrong though, since I think that it was The Dark Knight which brought Batman back to the forefront of pop culture, and maybe even the reason we got this theme, though that isn't the most kid friendly movie around, so maybe the same thing could happen with the Justice League movies. Again though, Nolan's movies were received very well, and if the new movies continue to be divisive (as MOS was) then that might not happen....

Eh, I don't know. Apparently it wasn't even relevant to your point, though it is one that people sometimes bring up when we have the diversity discussion. I guess I just got carried away...and then did it again when I tried to explain myself. Sorry. :P

The "specialist" versions of a given character are actually more interesting for collectors than kids. Beside the inclusion of an "iconic" characters is not the only reason of a set success. It's well known the case of never seen before characters who became best sellers. Let's not forget it is said Bionicle saved Lego during the crisis.

I think that

clip from The Simpsons explains those variants well. It keeps people buying more, when another Batman might have been a turn off. There are kids who will only get one set sometimes, but maybe that new hat could help convince them to buy a second. Action figures are notorious for that sort of marketing.

Yep, new and cool looking characters can sell, but if they are untested, it is still a risk compared to someone like Batman, who can easily be used as a crutch, especially since he is established as having an array of vehicles.

Anyway, personally I was not complaining. I bought all the 2015 DC sets and if I found the "Batman-centric" thing a problem I wouldn't

You don't have to justify yourself. I don't think that there's anything wrong with your behavior, I'm just playing devil's advocate. :P

I think pairing Aquaman with the Bat-submarine is actually a good idea, since it is actually a scene from the New 52 ( it's part of the Justice League "Throne of Atlantis" collection)

The problem, just a little one, is Batman tends to steal the scene to characters who are supposed to be the "star" of the set (Gorilla Grodd goes Bananas, set it one of them).

Yeah, I agree, but it's easy for Batman to steal the scene. He's popular, and his vehicles make it easy to come up with a main build for the set. I wouldn't have minded if the Grodd set had some sort of playset though; we're missing one this wave.

The presence of "specialist" versions of a character does not conflict with the "they are making a Clone Army of him" argument. There are a lot of specialist Clone Troopers after all

I think that the fact that LEGO stopped making generic white clone troopers with the CW sets after a couple of years supports my point. They figured that people got tired of getting the same old thing with characters who, for the most part, are supposed to be the same old thing. If they feel the need to mix up clone troopers, surely they are going to do the same thing with Batman. It's to keep things fresh for people who already have "the old hat."

Talking about Star Wars, it's obvious the most "iconic" characters appears more frequently (even though it's not always the case. See Palplatine, for example) but none of them is present in 3 out 5 sets from a single wave.

Yep, you'll see characters like Luke Skywalker more often than Rotta the Hutt, but that's because Luke is must have and needs to be on the market at all times so that kids have a chance to (pay to) get him. Rotta on the other hand? Not so many people care about him.

The reason that Luke isn't in every set is because the line doesn't rely on him to singlehandedly sell everything. Star Wars has a diverse range of personalities not only among its characters (though it is a great example of characters who look cool but being unknown selling, like you mentioned), but also its scenarios and vehicles. So, Luke is dispersed to make the expensive sets more attractive, while the others can often get by because of cool (if not insignificant characters) and the fact that it is Star Wars. That name means a lot more than Luke and his friends, it is basically selling a universe. I think that "Star Wars" itself explains what you are buying: star wars.

DC isn't so simple. It is true that the DC multiverse is broader, but that kind of backfires for marketing it in the same way as Star Wars. This world is so divided just at the surface (and not only by time periods, like Star Wars) between Batman (gritty crime), Wonder Woman (fantastical myth), Superman (classic sci-fi and mad science), and Green Lantern (emotional caricatures battling in outer space) with their disparate settings, tones, and adventures, it's harder to sell under one moniker. Plus, again, DC lacks a lot of realistic set potential. There are plenty of good playsets which could be produced, hypothetically, but not a lot of vehicles. It's more about the characters and their worlds.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure I'm explaining this so well.

I agree with you on the fact the Star Wars universe's vastness offer a great potential. It's a whole Galaxy, after all. But DC comics cover a multiverse! It's even vaster. It's not just Gotham like you said. They make sets not just from the movies.

Yep, very true, but Star Wars is a proven brand, and most of DC's worlds aren't, aside from Gotham.

You may say the "multiverse" is not well known by the "standard consumer" but, honestly, a well made set will sell even if it features something unknown or even knew. Sometimes it attracts even more interest

I agree, and I think that some sets from this last wave (Brainiac, Darkseid) are really good examples of that. It's easy to use Batman as a crutch though, and LEGO and DC have both fallen into that unfortunate trap from time to time. I do think that DC is trying to do better, so maybe LEGO will follow, but I'm not so optimistic that they can actually establish other heroes as toy brands. That's what they have to do, establish each hero as their individual brand, unless they want them to stay in Batman's shadow.

However, like I said, I was not complaining or saying Lego did it wrong. I really like the DC sets and Batman's presence, or over-presence, didn't ruin my interest in those sets

Hey, you don't have to justify yourself. I think that almost everybody wants more of the universe explored in their sets, I'm just playing devil's advocate and trying to make sense of why they haven't and might not.

[psqidexslizer248]

Oh, sorry if that wasn't clear of me. Let me explain in more detail: Sometimes people assume that when the movies come out, it will generate more of an interest in characters aside from Batman, and I listed Wonder Woman, Aquaman, and Green Lantern because they inhabit pretty distinctive fantasy worlds which would be great to explore both on screen and in brick. But since MOS was divisive and the BVS trailer has made it clear that it is going to explore some darker themes, it seems surefire that the movies will not have the same kid/family appeal that the Marvel ones do, so there won't be much interest among the target audience.

I could be wrong though, since I think that it was The Dark Knight which brought Batman back to the forefront of pop culture, and maybe even the reason we got this theme, though that isn't the most kid friendly movie around, so maybe the same thing could happen with the Justice League movies. Again though, Nolan's movies were received very well, and if the new movies continue to be divisive (as MOS was) then that might not happen....

Eh, I don't know. Apparently it wasn't even relevant to your point, though it is one that people sometimes bring up when we have the diversity discussion. I guess I just got carried away...and then did it again when I tried to explain myself. Sorry. :P

I imagine with Phil Lord and Chris Miller writing the Flash movie that it'll be a lighter film and I want to say Shazam is rumored to be kid friendly, so hopefully there will be some family/kid appeal with those two.

[BrickSev]

Hey Super Fish Oil,

I was not trying to argue with your points about the marketing behind those sets. I was actually making a joke on the abundance of Batman

Hey, you don't have to justify yourself. I think that almost everybody wants more of the universe explored in their sets, I'm just playing devil's advocate and trying to make sense of why they haven't and might not.

I was not justifying myself, lol, I was trying to make sure I was not arguing with you or complaining too much about those sets. It started like a joke but it turned out to be a quite interesting discussion about "marketing"

I understand what you are saying about Star Wars. It is indeed a proven brand with 30+ years of activity and billions of dollars in royalties ( If I remember correctly I once read since 1977 only with royalties Star Wars made something like 27 billion dollars!) but since the beginning they had no fear in making toys (I'm talking mostly about the old action figures) about the less famous characters and that policy proved very successful

Of course to the movies get more attentions than the comics. Even though, I have to admit, I often found the DC movies disappointing compared with the Comics (while I have to say the contrary regarding Marvel) However it's undeniable the "average user" ( I mean someone who have a mild occasional interest in the DC universe) finds more iconic the movie versions and of course "average users" are the majority.

However, and that was the point I probably didn't make clear myself, I think if the would risk a little bit with different concepts, they could truly get a vast success even with sets which are less, let's say, "mainstream".

There is a huge potential in the DC universe and I do believe even with less "mainstream" set they could rely increase sales, if they do things right

Sometimes it seems they put Batman in most sets just a "protection measure". Batman is iconic so we know people will buy at least one of those sets.

My point was "if they would risk a little bit they could have even more success"

I wish I had the time to talk even more in details about this matter. Like I said it started with a my joke of the "abundance of Batman" but it turned out to be a quite interesting conversation

[Hythonia]

Apparently in 2016, LEGO will be making DC sets targeted towards girls based on the "DC Super Hero Girls" line. How much you wanna bet they'll use minidolls instead of minifigs, though?

[8BrickMario]

Apparently in 2016, LEGO will be making DC sets targeted towards girls based on the "DC Super Hero Girls" line. How much you wanna bet they'll use minidolls instead of minifigs, though?

I wouldn't need to buy them if they had mini-dolls. But a girl-targeted DC anything is ridiculous. Anyone is allowed to enjoy it. Since when are girls excluded?

[EdWebhead]

Apparently in 2016, LEGO will be making DC sets targeted towards girls based on the "DC Super Hero Girls" line. How much you wanna bet they'll use minidolls instead of minifigs, though?

Source?

[BrickSev]

Apparently in 2016, LEGO will be making DC sets targeted towards girls based on the "DC Super Hero Girls" line. How much you wanna bet they'll use minidolls instead of minifigs, though?

Minidolls in the Super Heroes themes... Quoting Yoda: "The shroud of the Dark Side has fallen" lol

[BatZack]

I reckon it'd be cool. But I mean if their gonna do mini-dolls I'll be less excited. I want minifigures, not dolls.

Source is at DC's website

[Hythonia]

I wouldn't need to buy them if they had mini-dolls. But a girl-targeted DC anything is ridiculous. Anyone is allowed to enjoy it. Since when are girls excluded?

How many sets are there that feature more than one female character? How many are there that feature more than one male character? I agree that anyone is allowed to enjoy it, but superhero merchandise in general is very heavily targeted towards males (look at Avengers 2 merchandise... Black Widow is scarcely seen despite being one of the main six). I applaud DC for attempting to build a larger female audience.

Source?

http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/dc-entertainment-and-warner-bros-launch-dc-super-hero-girls-initiativ

[8BrickMario]

I'm all for expanded audience, but if minidolls are involved, I'm calling sexism and pandering on the sets. I don't particularly approve of gender-targeted marketing, but when it fails to be universal, the girls' products usually go overboard. I will not pass judgement until I see these sets, because if they're cool, I'll get them. Especially if we get Black Canary, Power Girl, and Hawkgirl in minifigure form! And Cheetah!

[BrickSev]

How many sets are there that feature more than one female character? How many are there that feature more than one male character? I agree that anyone is allowed to enjoy it, but superhero merchandise in general is very heavily targeted towards males (look at Avengers 2 merchandise... Black Widow is scarcely seen despite being one of the main six). I applaud DC for attempting to build a larger female audience.

They could increase the presence of female characters without using the "mini-doll" format. Just the "old fashioned" beloved Minifigures. In that case I would indeed approve

[InnerRayg]

I wouldn't need to buy them if they had mini-dolls. But a girl-targeted DC anything is ridiculous. Anyone is allowed to enjoy it. Since when are girls excluded?

You said this without any hint of irony. Pretty amazing. But you're right, other than the last forty years, comics have been doing a great job of not excluding women.

[Darth Punk]

I wouldn't need to buy them if they had mini-dolls. But a girl-targeted DC anything is ridiculous. Anyone is allowed to enjoy it. Since when are girls excluded?

Not Being excluded and being included are not the same thing. And if anyone is allowed to enjoy it how is a girl targeted dc anything ridiculous. Are you saying girls are allowed to enjoy boy toys but boys cannot enjoy girl toys? If gender does not matter why do so many people get upset when a single all girl comic is announced despite the hundreds of male dominated comics?

Edited April 22, 2015 by Darth Punk

[8BrickMario]

You said this without any hint of irony. Pretty amazing. But you're right, other than the last forty years, comics have been doing a great job of not excluding women.

What I meant to say is that DC should be accessible, but since I realize it really isn't so universal, I was wrong. I suppose I went crazy, since "girl-targeted" has sadly equated "girly" to me. (See the Friends line.) My knee-jerk reaction was more aimed at the possibility of the sets using minidolls, while I think the sets would be just as good with minifigs.

Being excluded and being included are not the same thing. And if anyone is allowed to enjoy it how is a girl targeted dc anything ridiculous. Are you saying girls are allowed to enjoy boy toys but boys cannot enjoy girl toys? If gender does not matter why do so many people get upset when a single all girl comic is announced despite the hundreds of male dominated comics?

Unfortunately, boys aren't really accepted if they enjoy girls' toys past the age of 3. Males are under pressure to be "manly", and it's been perpetuated that boys should not be into girls' things. Male FOLs will get strange looks from other customers at a store for admiring a Friends set with some nice new parts. I don't like it, as one's tastes shouldn't be bound by stereotype, but that's where we are right now. I remain optimistic for both the comics and the sets, although I wonder if a female cast will be enough to attract a wider market.

[just2good]

Now, I don't think we'll be getting any sets branded like that, I just think LEGO will be introducing more girls to their line and making products that market to it in the Super Heroes line.

I know in late 2015, there's a book coming out branded under the LEGO DC Super Heroes line that features only Supergirl, Catwoman, and Wonder Woman. However, I hope I'm wrong and that they do produce sets based soley on the property. I think it'd be cool.

[Borex]

We men love more women so bring them on

[Darth Punk]

What I meant to say is that DC should be accessible, but since I realize it really isn't so universal, I was wrong. I suppose I went crazy, since "girl-targeted" has sadly equated "girly" to me. (See the Friends line.) My knee-jerk reaction was more aimed at the possibility of the sets using minidolls, while I think the sets would be just as good with minifigs.

Unfortunately, boys aren't really accepted if they enjoy girls' toys past the age of 3. Males are under pressure to be "manly", and it's been perpetuated that boys should not be into girls' things. Male FOLs will get strange looks from other customers at a store for admiring a Friends set with some nice new parts. I don't like it, as one's tastes shouldn't be bound by stereotype, but that's where we are right now. I remain optimistic for both the comics and the sets, although I wonder if a female cast will be enough to attract a wider market.

I completely agree there is a double standard. Companies like TLG and DC are going up against decades of gender marketing. They do have to start somewhere and TLG was finally able to do so with friends. There are no perfect solutions but we can't just say everything should now just be equal going forward. Some amount of changes are needed to help achieve the desired balance. Mini dolls are apart of that equation.