krimimimi

@Huigberts Builds thanks!

Which Smyths? I checked all of them (in Europe? were there more?), and none had Malfoy anything aside from a Draco Funko pop. Re:lobster There's also a golden frying pan and a golden handle for the cauldron on the hearth. Très posh!

Hell, if they pull that off in a sensible fashion, I might even buy it. Presently it's not on my radar at all. No, you couldn't be more right, not do I see the appeal in so many more Harrys, tbh. I can already pull it together from the figs I have lying about, save Hagrid and his motorcycle, and they won't squeeze more out of me than 20 eur for that addition, at which price point it should include a few Death Eaters.

Judging by the lack of depth of the build, I'm guessing the table only has seats on one side and is open to the back, so removing it from the build to place on the table top, or whatever, gives us space to add more DEs. @BrickBob Studpants, we can also add Pettigrew and Albert Runcorn (/HP). Although perhaps not a Death Eater per se, unclear, his goals clearly align with theirs, he's respected by them, and unlike Thicknesse he isn't canonically known to be Imperiused. And Snape, double agent or not, was present. As for the others, surely we have some generic black suits lying about, although more (many more!) would be nice. Lego, if you're listening, it's well past time for a DE accessory pack.

The Malfoys are nothing if not shallow, so that fits, and as for Ron, he bunked off for a few months there (October through almost New Year's iirc), maybe someone is holding that against him? 😉 More seriously, I assume, given they've included Voldemort and Nagini, and particularly as there aren't that many scenes that take place at the Manor, that one of the things we're getting in the interior is the Table. We've only got five characters in the set who'd be seated at the Table, and it would be odd if three of them had to stand instead. I imagine that's the explanation for the legs vs. skirt pieces at any rate. @Accio Lego, I think you're right, that's almost always the answer, that they've access to source material we don't typically see, and yet I can't help thinking we'd usually be better served by having it match what we actually saw in the films.

He's right about the prints and the overall quality of the HP ACs compared to others, and that doesn't just go for lego. I've had advent calendars ever since I was a kid, and they're a key part of the season. Somewhere along the line, as an adult, it gets pared back to chocolates, if you're lucky, or maybe tea, or just pictures behind the doors. Lego has really re-introduced the fun to ACs, the HP and City ones especially, and even the City ones have started to have too many boring nano builds. What am I supposed to do with all the miniature RC airplanes, cars, boats and trains? By contrast, I loved last year's expansion to Hogsmeade, the artwork was a joy, and the ability to play with just the box and its contents is so nice. It's considerate design. I hope they do one for Diagon Alley at some point, and I'm going to enjoy this Great Hall expansion pack, too.

Brainfart, ignore me. 😆 I didn't get much sleep this week.

Maybe because when Harry takes off after the Rememberall, McG is the one who spots him and asks him to join the Gryffindor team? It's not a class, but making it a class would be more in keeping with the current scheme.

Interesting point. I go back and forth on wanting better prints, like I don't feel the Snape minifig's face captures most of the sardonic Snape at the front of the classroom, but then again, you want the dramatic moments, so that only bugs me a little, and on the opposite side, the arm printing in general is very welcome... But I also know when I was building the Ford, I didn't feel I needed those new prints of Harry's and Ron's outfits. Admittedly, it probably didn't help that Ron's didn't even feel like an improvement, and Harry's actually seemed a step backwards. (I miss the pockets.) I would have much rather had the budget spent getting us new ghosts or Ginny's abominable Yule Ball dress, stuff that's difficult to MOC. Obviously they do things like adding new prints to generate sales, we needed the boys in the set, and it's more complicated than just giving us more characters in more scenes. I want HP lego to succeed and keep going for ages, but if external / sales pressures weren't a thing, I'd have (theoretically unnecessary) minifigs like Lavender dancing with Seamus at the Ball.

Their reasons stated in multiple interviews over the years for not doing the Bell Towers and rear of the castle amount to an unfavourable intersection of necessary price and lacking "iconic-ness" of location. I can't see them releasing a 300 EUR play scale castle set that doesn't include the Great Hall. They might even do the Staircase tower in sections to bring the price down while increasing customisability. I know there's at least one non-lego plastic toy that approaches the tower that way. WARNING, some MATHS FOLLOW: As they said "low-key", and obviously it's a plot driven choice with Cedric as a romantic rival to Harry. Without electing for a certain amount of framing (Cho is bi and could have just as easily chosen Cedrica as Harry - and rather frighteningly, iirc, acting upon the attraction was also illegal in Scotland at the time the story takes place 😧 🏳️‍🌈. Can anyone from the UK confirm / deny?), from a story-telling POV, the decision to make Cedric male in that constellation is simple. From a statistical angle, however, removing the (newly) same sex schools from the equation, there was only a 1 in 4 chance of both remaining Hogwarts champions being male if gender otherwise doesn't figure into it, so it does also seem to - low-key - imply something. Mathematically, it is a less probable result: it is three times more probable that there would have been at least an equal number of witches as wizards from Hogwarts, if not more witches outright. Ignoring plot for the moment, maybe it's just a question of luck, but in a fictional world in need of defining, there's a distinct possibility it's a descriptive statement instead, and the probability of the latter increases when Fleur proceeds to do poorly in the competition. (That's a value-free representation of mathematics. I appreciate it was largely driven by the story they were attempting to tell.) But if Beauxbatons and Durmstrang are not same sex schools, that is to say if the filmmakers had gone with what the author had originally written, that aspect is lessened from a world building POV as a witch's success - canonically - becomes a proven possibility. (There are then 11 in 16 chances of having 2 or more (50% or more) witches (or wizards) as champions. If the maths make you uncomfortable, it might help to note there are also 6 in 16 chances of a 50/50 split. 😉) That said, that's maths meets writing theory, so I didn't care about that change as much as I did the odd aging, like somehow Snape, Lupin and Black would have all been 33 - 34 in PoA. And back to topic... as much as I love the canonical casting choices, the result is I do need less wrinkly minifigs to make it look right. As for the named character in the set who didn't appear in the films: I would assume Madam Malkin. The flowersaleswitchard is the opposite, an unnamed character who does appear in the films.

@BrickBob Studpants It doesn't have to be something major, but if they're expanding the material from a movie to a multiple episode series, then I would expect book characters who have little or no presence in the films to make more of an appearance on screen. I'm not talking about whatever usually sets people off, significant changes to the cast, their backstories, the setting, or timing, merely the inclusion of Cormac, Firenze, Grubbly-Plank, Peeves and Binns etc. in sets, in the same way they've included Sinistra and Vector, and not sets revolving around them exclusively. Simply more things (characters, locations, scenes) to flesh out their world. Perhaps naively, but I still can't see that alienating moviegoers, no matter how far afield the series itself went. It's a little like the ghost in the AC: a bonus, if not a must have, but definitely nothing to actively complain about, whether you recognise her or not.

There's nothing limiting them to a three year run, though. I understand they want to make sure there's a Great Hall available for new fans, but three year cycles seem to be cooling interest, and stretching that a little might help. I can't help wondering how the television show will influence that. The buy in for your lego Hogwarts is pretty absurd right now, certainly for more casual fans, but the advisability of that might depend on the age of the viewers the show is hoping to reach.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. You're approaching it with simple common sense, and that's not the only driving factor in their decision making process. (If it is at all... ) Something going EoL isn't an entirely reliable predictor of things to come. For example, the Ninjago City and NC Docks had been retired for over a year before NC Gardens appeared, and for the same reasons you don't think they'd release a DA2 after DA went EoL, I'd argue the latter set lost a little on appeal if you hadn't gotten at least one of the others before. Agreed, but that didn't stop them. Instead you have the release of NC Markets to broaden NC Gardens' appeal again. While it might seem superficially counterintuitive, the approach helps with retailer shelf space issues, rewards fans by increasing the value of something they took a chance on, and allows your piggy bank to replenish so you can make the next stretch when it inevitably comes. (How many aren't getting the 2024 GH because the product cycles were too short?) The thought a set might suddenly get such a boost in the future in turn lends more attractiveness to their present collections (sometimes deservedly, sometimes not), and that while they also try to keep the scalping / speculating in check (purchase limits, or through brutal re-releases: 2009 and 2015 Winter Toy Shops, for instance). It's a delicate balance. Whatever else, the brand holds value in part by how they manage releases and re-releases; that's part of what you're paying for. So yeah, I can absolutely picture them doing the same with DA. On a different note, though, the set was made so you could display two builds across from two others, so if they did the same again, it's not necessarily a deal breaker that you'd be missing half the street. We are also definitely experiencing a DA remake, and will eventually see more of the same if only the line runs long enough. Rinse, repeat. Lego, kindly take my monehs. As for Gringotts, I know you can display the set with DA, but if the line continues, there's no earthly way they don't remake it, also on a D2C scale. The current version also has half a set that proves difficult to display with the rest, and over-invests in the façade while under-investing in the Menagerie, which is too rudimentary by far and not in scale with the street. So this, too, feels like something they'd revisit.

Yes, the 2024 one with GH House tables and sconce House statues and the carolling ghost. @mirkwoodspiders a second DA scale, with the Leaky and maybe another shop or two a DA part 2 that's the other side of the street an eventual Knockturn Alley (same scale, after the series begins and they have more material for it), further down the line, a DA 1 scale compatible Gringotts, Hogsmeade (it will do double duty as a Christmas / winter display set), the Knight Bus, the Ford, Hagrid's hut (if they can revisit the Burrow in greater detail, they can definitely revisit Hagrid, especially when he's so popular), maybe they'd also revisit the Durmstrang ship, those are perennial faves. at which point they can take it from the top again

@Bobdapeach, yes, the present expectations are for a GWP, the Burrow as the D2C and an Advent Calendar come autumn.