Harry Potter 2021 - Rumors & Discussion

[karrit]

I think some of the nuances to this discussion are getting lost in translation because some of us are saying similar things in slightly different ways.  I personally never said there shouldn't be any exclusive figures.  If there weren't what would be the point of all the CMF series. 

My whole point is the particular Harry Potter variant being brought up as exclusive throughout this discussion was never to my knowledge advertised as an exclusive figure.  It was one of the first figures leaked and then it was purposely not officially listed as being in the DA set or anywhere in last years wave of sets which drove the frenzy of what the heck was the leaked figure meant for.  It was a gift from Lego to the fans but somewhere some people have decided it should have been an exclusive and seem to be getting quite upset that it will now be more easily available.  If I  remember correctly it was even discussed at the time that the figure would appear elsewhere eventually.

[Metanoios]

21 minutes ago, Textorix said:

I think you missed a coversation where was said that the build is the most important thing but without good minifigures it wouldnt be that great and therefore they are also very important. I think that people who like some of minifigs staying exclusive should be respected and not marked as some selfish people who only care about owning sth that others do not bcs thats not true, everyone can buy those minifigures, even from BL for those who cant afford DA set, its just you wont find them in other sets.

Just so that we are on the same page what "exclusive" means in its usage in modern day English. It is defined in the Oxford Dictionary by the following sentences :

"- limited to one particular person, group or area; only given to one particular person, group or area

- not very willing to allow new people to become members, especially if they are from a lower social class

- of a high quality and expensive and therefore not often bought or used by most people"

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/academic/exclusive

I just wanted you to know that wanting "exclusivity" literally means others not having it. If you mean something else with your words, it is advisable to use concise language so that there are no misunderstandings and ideas can be exchanged. In our society you are free to be either a champion of exclusivity or accessibility. I think a children's toy should be as accessible as possible, because the real world tends to throw more than enough restrictions on us. But I don't condemn some to want what others don't have. It is only human.

[1234567892022]

Am I the only one who thought 'Scrimgeour' when I saw the picture of the random wizard in the hat? I know that he never wears a hat and his face was too smiley, but that hair sort of gave me a glimpse of what he could look like. 

[MaxHeadroom]

30 minutes ago, karrit said:

I think some of the nuances to this discussion are getting lost in translation because some of us are saying similar things in slightly different ways.  I personally never said there shouldn't be any exclusive figures.  If there weren't what would be the point of all the CMF series. 

My whole point is the particular Harry Potter variant being brought up as exclusive throughout this discussion was never to my knowledge advertised as an exclusive figure.  It was one of the first figures leaked and then it was purposely not officially listed as being in the DA set or anywhere in last years wave of sets which drove the frenzy of what the heck was the leaked figure meant for.  It was a gift from Lego to the fans but somewhere some people have decided it should have been an exclusive and seem to be getting quite upset that it will now be more easily available.  If I  remember correctly it was even discussed at the time that the figure would appear elsewhere eventually.

It's a bit hard to have a nuanced discussion when people are being compared to kings who believed they were chosen by god and "some former president" for... wanting a LEGO minifigure to be exclusive to a certain LEGO set. 
 

I personally didn't believe the figure would remain exclusive forever (although I had hoped the head would only be included in the DA and a potential KA set) but I don't blame anyone for thinking it would. LEGO didn't say the figure would be exclusive but they also didn't say it would even be in the set. You've mentioned they said it would be included somewhere else but I had never heard that and I'm sure that's true for most people. Where exactly did you hear that discussed?

[lego_guyon02]

10 minutes ago, MaxHeadroom said:

I personally didn't believe the figure would remain exclusive forever (although I had hoped the head would only be included in the DA and a potential KA set) but I don't blame anyone for thinking it would. LEGO didn't say the figure would be exclusive but they also didn't say it would even be in the set. You've mentioned they said it would be included somewhere else but I had never heard that and I'm sure that's true for most people. Where exactly did you hear that discussed?

The Silencio Harry leaked long before anything else but when DA's box leaked he wasn't on there, leading to people speculating about him being included somewhere else.

[Balrogofmorgoth]

5 minutes ago, Guyon2002 said:

The Silencio Harry leaked long before anything else but when DA's box leaked he wasn't on there, leading to people speculating about him being included somewhere else.

That is correct

[Textorix]

18 minutes ago, MaxHeadroom said:

It's a bit hard to have a nuanced discussion when people are being compared to kings who believed they were chosen by god and "some former president" for... wanting a LEGO minifigure to be exclusive to a certain LEGO set. 

Right? Thats what I was saying here that I dont think people who enjoy some minifigs being exclusive (or rarer is better word I guess) should be judged over this and marked as bad greedy collectors who doesnt want kids or anyone else to be able to get those minifigures... 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Textorix

[chris6507]

2 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

I honestly think it’s fine to include a previously exclusive figure in a cheaper set. I would have bought the figure on BL for way less than $400 if that’s the only reason I was buying the set. Doesn’t matter to me if figures don’t stay exclusive. 

The problem is when a figure is from a $400 set and you pay nearly $20 each for them (like I did with the D2C Jurassic Park figures) and then they come out in a $20 set. That does matter. It makes it a complete waste of money for something you thought you had paid a reasonable price for.

I think we all just need a little ability to agree to disagree on this exclusive minifigure subject. I'm personally on the side of liking some exclusive minifigures. They do feel special, Its hard to explain, but I do feel something different towards my more exclusive minifigures from expensive sets as I only have a few and I feel lucky to have them. I play the pokemon games and I feel the same way about pokemon that i've gotten from events in the past. It's a special memento of something you were there for at the time.  A different name, Colour, Move or pokeball was all i needed to be to make something special. Everyone can still get "that" pokemon, just not that slightly special variant that I was lucky to be there for. There will always be more exclusives to come for others in the future that will feel special to them for their own reasons.

Sorry for my long post, and I'd appreciate if nobody attacks me for my opinion as I am not attacking anyone who has a differing opinion. Just trying to explain why a little exclusivity feels special to me.

Also just want to add. I do not like exclusive "characters" only exclusive "figures/prints". 

Also, one last thing. Someone mentioned the 4 exclusives in Diagon Alley remaining exclusives.... but wasn't Malfoy one of them who is now coming in a Book?

Edited February 9, 2021 by chris6507

[Textorix]

Malfoy from DA is still exclusive. The one from book set has completely different torso.

[BacktoBricks]

2 minutes ago, Textorix said:

Malfoy from DA is still exclusive. The one from book set has completely different torso.

I don't think he does, just that some images make the torso look like it has red on and some don't.

[Metanoios]

1 minute ago, Textorix said:

Right? Thats what I was saying here that I dont think people who enjoy some minifigs being exclusive (or rarer is better word I guess) should be judged over this and marked as bad greedy collectors who doesnt want kids or anyone else to be able to get those minifigures... 

I never once mentioned the words greed or bad in any of my previous posts, not even in synonyms. I just applied the Socratic approach of questioning in a thoughtful discussion about the perceived need for an exclusivity of minifigures. Also my small allegory of kings and a former president is a literary technique alluding to the the futileness of perceived wealth. It was most prominently used by a Nazarean prophet, whose thoughts were handed down for roughly 2000 years in an old dusty book, although I must admit that he used other examples like camels and the eye of a needle. Some of his followers nowadays don't like the Harry Potter books all that much, because they are a more interesting and entertaining read than the old dusty book.

[Textorix]

I cant post pictures here to show you the difference but DA Malfoy has black robes same as Harry, Ron and Hermione but with Slytherin erb ofc and the book version of Malfoy has grey sweater

Edited February 9, 2021 by Textorix

[Metanoios]

4 minutes ago, BacktoBricks said:

I don't think he does, just that some images make the torso look like it has red on and some don't.

 

1 minute ago, Textorix said:

I cant post pictures here to show you the difference but DA Malfoy has black robes same as Harry, Ron and Hermione but with Slytherin erb ofc and the book version of Malfoy has grey sweater

You are talking about two different Malfoys. Backtobricks means Lucius whereas Textroix means Draco. Lucius is coming in a book this summer (might be even two DK publications) and he is the same figure as in DA

[BacktoBricks]

4 minutes ago, Textorix said:

I cant post pictures here to show you the difference but DA Malfoy has black robes same as Harry, Ron and Hermione but with Slytherin erb ofc and the book version of Malfoy has grey sweater

I thought you meant Lucius Malfoy.

I think @Guyon2002 mentioned that Draco's torso might be in the new bathroom set. Or am I remembering wrong?

Edited February 9, 2021 by BacktoBricks

[Jacob Bricks Alot]

Hey thought I’d show a concept for another Hogwarts Moments Set ( Yes I know this is quite random but I believe this would be a pretty cool set). It would be based on The Prisoner of Azkaban (The figures I’ve included aren’t accurate but those ones are the ones that I put in there because they have longer legs and they could sit on the seat). The set would include a new layout for the books were on one side is the main build, the other side would be more of a  storage room. You could put your cups and stuff inside the cupboard and then there would be this part where you can hold some supplies but the main section would be what we see in the movies where you can fit two figures and you have the table, cup two seats (for two figures) and up above then there is this nice decoration which you can see in the movies (which is a chandelier) The figures I’ve included aren’t accurate but those ones are the ones that I put in there because they have longer legs and they could sit on the seats. The set would include a new layout for the books were on one side is the main build and on the other will be quite a flat storage area. This is so there will be more storage included so you could put your cups and stuff inside the cupboards and it just gives you a main area to display the figures on there own. Then there would be this part where you can hold some supplies but the main section would be what we see in the movies. This is where you can fit two figures and you have the accessories and a cup. There is two seats for two figures and up above them there is this nice decoration which you can see in the movies, and also about that there is some more storage which has a quill and a bottle and some sort of cup which would come in handy for the classes. On the other side which is the flat side there is a little bit of decoration above with this Dragon carving and then there would be a little bit of architecture and then the cupboard which is where you can store the cups and then at the bottom of the curtains there is a bottle a fang (Reference to the philosopher’s Stone) and a little teapot there is also some more grey to show more of the architecture and a spoon to stir the tea. figures included would probably be Azkaban variant of Harry and Draco and Sybill Trelawney. Thanks for taking your time reading this if you haven’t read it all that’s fine you can just look at the image! the image I put below isn’t the best quality because I took it at night but you can kind of see what I mean by what I’m describing. I think this would be a pretty cool set. 

[Balrogofmorgoth]

6 minutes ago, Metanoios91 said:

I never once mentioned the words greed or bad in any of my previous posts, not even in synonyms. I just applied the Socratic approach of questioning in a thoughtful discussion about the perceived need for an exclusivity of minifigures. Also my small allegory of kings and a former president is a literary technique alluding to the the futileness of perceived wealth. It was most prominently used by a Nazarean prophet, whose thoughts were handed down for roughly 2000 years in an old dusty book, although I must admit that he used other examples like camels and the eye of a needle. Some of his followers nowadays don't like the Harry Potter books all that much, because they are a more interesting and entertaining read than the old dusty book.

Funny. Every word of what you just said is wrong 

[lego_guyon02]

2 minutes ago, BacktoBricks said:

I think @Guyon2002 mentioned that Draco's torso might be in the new bathroom set. Or am I remembering wrong?

You're misremembering it, I said I heard they were given jumpers instead of the robes they should have 

[RODDY]

18 minutes ago, Metanoios91 said:

I never once mentioned the words greed or bad in any of my previous posts, not even in synonyms. I just applied the Socratic approach of questioning in a thoughtful discussion about the perceived need for an exclusivity of minifigures. Also my small allegory of kings and a former president is a literary technique alluding to the the futileness of perceived wealth. It was most prominently used by a Nazarean prophet, whose thoughts were handed down for roughly 2000 years in an old dusty book, although I must admit that he used other examples like camels and the eye of a needle. Some of his followers nowadays don't like the Harry Potter books all that much, because they are a more interesting and entertaining read than the old dusty book.

You don't have to type them on here. Just think about what kind of person this makes you, if you argue like you just did. Is it really true that your own precious possession becomes less meaningful to you, because others have it as well?

You may have not send it directly but you clearly implied it with this passage right here and just descended into personal attacks. Don’t give me the whole spiel about being innocent because you aren’t. Don’t even compare yourself to Jesus because you just look down on others and indulge in this false sense of virtue. You lack any sense of empathy or understanding and just label anyone you disagree with as vain and greedy while hiding behind this veneer (see I can use big boy words too) of false eloquence and arrogance.

Edited February 9, 2021 by RODDY

[BacktoBricks]

Just now, Guyon2002 said:

You're misremembering it, I said I heard they were given jumpers instead of the robes they should have 

Ah yes now I remember. Funny that they wouldn't reuse the robes they have just printed, but I'm sure they will pop up somewhere along the line.

[lego_guyon02]

8 minutes ago, BacktoBricks said:

Ah yes now I remember. Funny that they wouldn't reuse the robes they have just printed, but I'm sure they will pop up somewhere along the line.

Do ofc take in mind that things like this could change between now and the final release. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Guyon2002

[Balrogofmorgoth]

Just now, Guyon2002 said:

Do ofc take in mind that things like this could change between now and the final realise. 

Something I’m really hopeful for

[Metanoios]

2 minutes ago, RODDY said:

You don't have to type them on here. Just think about what kind of person this makes you, if you argue like you just did. Is it really true that your own precious possession becomes less meaningful to you, because others have it as well?

You may have not send it directly but you clearly implied it with this passage right here and just descended into personal attacks. Don’t give me the whole spiel about being innocent because you aren’t. Don’t even compare yourself to Jesus because you just look down on others and indulge in this false sense of virtue. 

Where did I use a personal insult referring to you (please quote the passage and the slang or derogatory term with your name in it)? Are questions insulting? I did not compare myself to Jesus. I just used a literary technique, which he was using as well. In fact this technique was used long before him. Like Jesus said, none of us are without sin. But you are right - it was not me, that argued to exclude others from ownership, looked down on others and wanted to take a minifigure/piece of plastic from those below me because of the need of collecting something "rare".

[BacktoBricks]

I don't think it is up to anyone to decide why someone else should buy a Lego set: for the builds, the minifigures, or to keep sealed in a box. You can buy it for your own reason and there is no right or wrong.

So why would some people feel cheated that a figure shows up in a cheap set after being exclusive to an expensive set?

I think the answer stems from Lego's own practices. I think we can all agree that Lego had made a habit of including one or two exclusive figures in expensive licensed sets as a marketing technique to get more people to spend on larger sets. In the past, these figures would then stay exclusive and fans knew it they wanted the figures they had to spend the money. Lego themselves set a precedent.

However, lately, and especially apparent in the HP line, figures are being reused in cheaper sets after first appearing in expensive sets. Why? Call me cynical, but I think from Lego's perspective it's largely to cut costs; yes it gives those with a lesser budget the chance to get figures they couldn't have otherwise, but Lego is a business after all so I don't think they are doing it to be overly generous. This change in practice therefore comes across to me as motivated by profit, for it appears that when it suited them to provide exclusives for marketing purposes they did so, but now it suits them more to reuse figures. If people start to know that most figures in expensive sets will show up in cheaper sets, then they can make an informed decision on whether they want to wait.

Do I agree with this change in practice? In essence yes because it allows people to get most figures at cheaper prices in the end, although of course I would rather some figures stayed exclusive if it meant that new figures were included in other sets instead of repeats. I don't agree with the cost cutting motivation that would appear to be behind it, but it does teach a better method in the end; patience and not money.

13 minutes ago, Guyon2002 said:

Do ofc take in mind that things like this could change between now and the final release. 

I hope so. I always remember them being in robes when they take the potion.

[1234567892022]

28 minutes ago, Jacob Bricks Alot said:

Hey thought I’d show a concept for another Hogwarts Moments Set

This looks amazing! Well done. I would love to see Divination, DADA and Care of Magical Creatures Moments sets. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by BrickFunatic

[Laurens]

Can't wait for the new sets. I had only bought the Knight Bus, never bothered to get other sets. But that might change :D

I see also this discussion about 'having something unique'. Of course everybody is entitled to that "uniqueness". But Lego is still a toy. I like my unique stuff, and build my own little Lego village, for me and the kids. Heck, I have sets, not many have. But if I could I would have all kids (and adults) have all these and other sets that were and will be. For me they can rerelease whatever old set, or make it better. Know that if you are for example living in Europe, US, etc, you can count yourself very lucky to be able to buy Lego, as many (and especially kids) can't. No, they get pushed into marriages, or have to fight in civil wars. So just leave the subject, and be happy with what you have. You come home, in your own safe haven, with your exclusive toys for you to admire, cherish, adore, every moment of the day that you are there with them :).

Edited February 9, 2021 by Laurens