Marvel Superheroes 2022 - Rumors & Discussion

[Fenghuang0296]

54 minutes ago, GoldenNinja3000 said:

I'll eventually get this set (even if I have to wait years for it to go on sale) and when I do I'll probably display it open. I like that it can open and since I don't like the dome head on this build I think opening up the chest to show off the Mark 43 would be a good look. But it's still pretty dumb to ruin the design of your entire model to fit another set inside it, no matter how cool that feature is.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if we get a $200 UCS Spider-Man motorcycle to go with the new figures. 

TECHNIC Spider-Buggy when?

[GoldenNinja3000]

4 minutes ago, Fenghuang0296 said:

TECHNIC Spider-Buggy when?

Wait, I've actually cracked LEGO's new strategy! We all know the concept of the $10 mech sets - one cool minifigure and one little mech build. Now LEGO's taking it one step further: a $25 buildable figure that's designed to go with a $350 mech each year. We got three Marvel D2Cs this year, so in 2023 I bet we'll see giant D2C mechs for the Spider-Man, Miles Morales, and Venom buildable figures. 

[cosmic]

So a few years late on this but how did I never notice how perfect the ears on the skrull from 76127 are for a Shrek figure? A custom Shrek would look great with those Skrull ears. I wonder if they were able to use the Genie ear piece because the mother company (Disney) owns the rights to both Marvel and the Disney cmf series? Or maybe licenses for specialized mould are more flexible than I originally thought? 

[PGBQW]

6 hours ago, GoldenNinja3000 said:

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if we get a $200 UCS Spider-Man motorcycle to go with the new figures

Spider Buggy D2C

5 hours ago, Fenghuang0296 said:

TECHNIC Spider-Buggy when?

Beat me to it

[Clone OPatra]

8 hours ago, Scarilian said:

Otherwise the inclusion of the function is pointless because once you shove an Iron Man figure inside it's utterly irrelevant and unnoticable and changes no aspect of the display unless you have the helmet up, so his body/arms/legs are useless with only his head being visible. 

To play devil's advocate, you could say this about any set that is fully enclosed and has an interior. Why have a detailed interior in the modulars when most people will just sit them on a shelf to display? Etc. Some people get a kick out of a thing being in a thing even if they're hardly every going to see it.

2 hours ago, cosmic said:

I wonder if they were able to use the Genie ear piece because the mother company (Disney) owns the rights to both Marvel and the Disney cmf series? Or maybe licenses for specialized mould are more flexible than I originally thought? 

It's not actually the Genie ear piece though, it's just very similar. The Genie one has a moulded earring and the skrull one does not.

[BrickBob Studpants]

2 hours ago, cosmic said:

A custom Shrek would look great with those Skrull ears.

Not really. Shrek‘s ears are very distinctive and iconic; so much so that they’re part of the logo. The Skrull ears are too far removed from that in my opinion

To think that we could’ve had a Shrek minifig had Dimensions continued for a third year…

[Ghostcat]

Heres a question, Would people shell out for this if it was Galactus? Albeit they would have to throw in a little fantasticar and some more figs. Imagine this but massive... 


People are skipping this because of innacuracy and price but what marvel mech WOULD be worth that much. 
I think the old sentinels were big enough but a £500 Galactus would be amazing. Problem is Lego wouldnt do it till he was in a film or such.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Ghostcat

[Mandalorianknight]

4 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

To play devil's advocate, you could say this about any set that is fully enclosed and has an interior. Why have a detailed interior in the modulars when most people will just sit them on a shelf to display? Etc. Some people get a kick out of a thing being in a thing even if they're hardly every going to see it.

I mean, there's a difference between a modular building, where the interior is a much bigger point of the set, than UCS type sets, which tend to focus on the exteriors. Modular buildings are, well, modular buildings, whereas the UCS sets are more like scale models.

[PsychoBuilder]

40 minutes ago, Ghostcat said:

Heres a question, Would people shell out for this if it was Galactus? Albeit they would have to throw in a little fantasticar and some more figs. Imagine this but massive... 


People are skipping this because of innacuracy and price but what marvel mech WOULD be worth that much. 
I think the old sentinels were big enough but a £500 Galactus would be amazing. Problem is Lego wouldnt do it till he was in a film or such.

Personally, I'm not much of a comics fan (although I am highly open to getting more large scale comic sets like the Bugle), so perhaps I'm biased against it, but I don't think I would. I feel like most mechs really do not need to be that big (other than an Ant Man, but that's just me probably), even something as well known as a hulkbuster. The only reason it might work would be like a one-off from a mech-based franchise like Pacific Rim or something?

[Scarilian]

I've seen a few people claiming this Hulkbuster 'does not need to exist' and 'who asked for this' well, honestly, neither of those statement really work and seem a bit petty. A market exists for Hulkbusters that has been proven as people keep financially supporting the Hulkbuster sets when they are made/released, a market exists for UCS adult focused Marvel sets this has been proven by prior UCS Marvel sets, a market exists for Iron Man associated aspects. People were asking for a better version after the 2015 version and I've seen several people offer the counter arguement that they wanted a Hulkbuster MKII and that would have made them more likely to buy at this price. The demand was there, people were asking for it and in terms of 'does not need to exist' that could be said more so for sets like 'Attack On New Asgard' compared to a fairly unique, largest mech set Lego has ever produced.

Put bluntly, it's not the concept of an attempt at a 1/16th scale Hulkbuster display model that can fit an Iron Man figure but instead the design and pricing that angers people and a lot of people are'nt thinking realistically when it comes to Lego pricing suggesting it should have retailed for the same price as the 2015 set which was $120 ($0.03PPP) or around $300 ($0.74PPP), it may hit the later of those on end of life sales but it should not be an option for release. The average in current year is $0.11PPP so the average price which it should have aimed for was $450 ($0.111PPP) and its original price being $500 ($0.123PPP) is only slightly higher than current year averages.

Spoiler tagged some of the below for space :P

6 minutes ago, Ghostcat said:

People are skipping this because of innacuracy and price but what marvel mech WOULD be worth that much.

Spoiler

 

The Hulkbuster is arguably the best choice for a mech at this scale, it had a large amount of focus in AoU, has proven succesful in sales prior, is repeatedly popular enough to sell smaller sets and Iron Man is the focal character of the MCU Phases 1-3 so any form of big D2C would want to focus around Iron Man or the Avengers primarily. Similarly it also needed to be the MK1 version of the Hulkbuster (MK44) which had a lot more focus on-screen and was generally recieved better than the MK2 version and is arguably more feasible to make in Lego form given the MK1 has some straight edges while the MK2 is almost entirely curves.

In concept it could not have been a better choice for a big mech set. The problem lies entirely in the design and pricing as you and others have relayed. If the design was a higher quality of accuracy, primarily the torso, then people would have been more willing to get the set. At such a price point however you are requiring the build to be accurate to justify it.

Similarly, a lower pricing would have helped sell an innaccurate design, however because of the piece count and light bricks it probably would not have retailed for lower than $450 as mentioned in my remarks about, the price per piece for this year has averaged around $0.11 and notably most places discount Lego sets by around 20% afterwards anyway so that would be factored into the core pricing.

 

3 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

To play devil's advocate, you could say this about any set that is fully enclosed and has an interior. Why have a detailed interior in the modulars when most people will just sit them on a shelf to display? Etc. Some people get a kick out of a thing being in a thing even if they're hardly every going to see it.

Spoiler

 

The modulars buildings are detailed internally from the start, you have the option to display them open or take off segments made to be removed to reveal the full interior. You get the comfort of knowing you can display it in either way and it'll generally look good regardless of where the focus on attention is; external or internal.

The Hulkbuster has what is akin to an empty box design for its middle with only a fraction of effort to cover gaps in the side and you can only reveal the upper segment and that's more-so designed to allow you to insert the figure as opposed to displaying the set with it open. Unless you are looking at it from the front chances are you'll notice the gaps and if the design only works

 

 

[mrcngrck]

i watched couple reviews on YT and I'm speechless how bad it is. 500 dolars for bad design. shame... just shame on you lego...

Edited October 20, 2022 by mrcngrck

[Falconfan1414]

The previous UCS hulkbuster was put on sale multiple times before it’s retirement indicating that it did not sell well so especially at the price I think people can ask why, especially at $550 
 

Granted there is a market for Hulkbusters which can be seen at how many hulkbusters Lego makes. But honestly this is one of the worst hulkbuster Lego has made
 

I think if the set was actually well designed and it was priced better the conversation might be different

[upliftingbricks]

3 hours ago, Ghostcat said:

Heres a question, Would people shell out for this if it was Galactus? Albeit they would have to throw in a little fantasticar and some more figs. Imagine this but massive... 

I'd buy a Galactus like the Harry Potter type ones above but that would be max $80. To be honest Im surprised Marvel (or any theme) havent got something in that style yet

[empiresperish]

1 hour ago, upliftingbricks said:

I'd buy a Galactus like the Harry Potter type ones above but that would be max $80. To be honest Im surprised Marvel (or any theme) havent got something in that style yet

The Harry Potter ones were a hard sell for me and I have bought every HP set since 2010. They probably targeted a different demographic so a set with minifigs and these together may not be registering in their set possibilities. 

I got lucky with the Target half off and $60 felt annoying for something I didn't really want... and then I built them, and felt how weighty and satisfying they feel. I would happily pay full price for any more giant figs exactly like them, no matter the Marvel character. (A Skeleton, Johnny Thunder, etc, I am really disappointed Lego hasn't made them for more themes.)

I think an Ant-Man to coincide with Quantumania would be the best place to try out selling this build again. I obviously wouldn't get my hopes up though. 

[hvader]

As an action figure fan, I appreciate Lego’s attempt at making an action figure line. Sure they dont look the best but if they perfect the designs I would love to get a few characters each year in this line.

Imagine a Willem Dafoe Green Goblin figure. That would be so sick

Edited October 20, 2022 by hvader

[upliftingbricks]

2 hours ago, empiresperish said:

The Harry Potter ones were a hard sell for me and I have bought every HP set since 2010. They probably targeted a different demographic so a set with minifigs and these together may not be registering in their set possibilities. 

I got lucky with the Target half off and $60 felt annoying for something I didn't really want... and then I built them, and felt how weighty and satisfying they feel. I would happily pay full price for any more giant figs exactly like them, no matter the Marvel character. (A Skeleton, Johnny Thunder, etc, I am really disappointed Lego hasn't made them for more themes.)

I think an Ant-Man to coincide with Quantumania would be the best place to try out selling this build again. I obviously wouldn't get my hopes up though. 

Harry and Hermoine seem like odd choices to do that design with at least as a starter but as soon as I saw them I knew I was going to get the instructions and convert the design to Ghostbusters Stay Puft. Doing an Ant-Man like you say seems like a given or any character thats Giant (Galactus, Sentinel, Thor Destroyer to name a few Marvel ones).

Not that it would happen, but a $550 Master Mold with a buildable Sentinel coming out of it would be an instant buy 

[NXS7]

26 minutes ago, upliftingbricks said:

 

Not that it would happen, but a $550 Master Mold with a buildable Sentinel coming out of it would be an instant buy 

Sneak in a little Easter Egg to keep him plugged in and I'm sold

[PGBQW]

11 hours ago, Ghostcat said:

 People are skipping this because of innacuracy

People are skipping this because it's painful to look at, being innacurate is the least of it's problems

[cosmic]

17 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

It's not actually the Genie ear piece though, it's just very similar. The Genie one has a moulded earring and the skrull one does not.

Good catch I take that back, but.. 

17 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Not really. Shrek‘s ears are very distinctive and iconic; so much so that they’re part of the logo. The Skrull ears are too far removed from that in my opinion

To think that we could’ve had a Shrek minifig had Dimensions continued for a third year…

its the closest we got in official Lego form. Was that a confirmed rumor that Shrek was eventually going to pop up in a dimensions pack? I never heard of that but I guess I was out of the loop during that time.

12 hours ago, Brickroll said:

Personally, I'm not much of a comics fan (although I am highly open to getting more large scale comic sets like the Bugle), so perhaps I'm biased against it, but I don't think I would. I feel like most mechs really do not need to be that big (other than an Ant Man, but that's just me probably), even something as well known as a hulkbuster. The only reason it might work would be like a one-off from a mech-based franchise like Pacific Rim or something?

With all due respect the example he used was of Galactus who is a huge celestial and not a mech. Speaking of which..

13 hours ago, Ghostcat said:

Heres a question, Would people shell out for this if it was Galactus? Albeit they would have to throw in a little fantasticar and some more figs. Imagine this but massive... 


People are skipping this because of innacuracy and price but what marvel mech WOULD be worth that much. 
I think the old sentinels were big enough but a £500 Galactus would be amazing. Problem is Lego wouldnt do it till he was in a film or such.

I would totally buy this! I mean I am the guy who constantly raves about comic content, prefers comic designs, and mostly skips MCU content. So naturally a comic based Galactus would be appealing. Part of me would hope they don’t include the Fantasticar as I think it would be neat to have a mainline release of a F4 comic set that isn’t as expensive and for that reason I think it should be sold separate. I absolutely adore the Silver Surfer and we’d surely get the herald to the invasion if said set would be produced and that is just the most exciting thought ever. Its funny, a giant Galactus was one of a few builds I felt was truly deserving of this price point, along with a Stark Tower or X Mansion.

[PsychoBuilder]

2 hours ago, cosmic said:

With all due respect the example he used was of Galactus who is a huge celestial and not a mech. Speaking of which..

Okay, fair enough, but that’s not entirely my point. I’m just using mech to refer to a Lego buildable figure in this instance.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Brickroll

[thebricksbear]

I'm by no means a fan of the Hulkbuster, but I think what we learned and probably need to remember is that Lego didnt design it, it was a specific designer/person, and there's a decent chance they browse these boards... 

 

 

I honestly think Galactus will probably be designed like a celestial, which should be awesome. I'm debating picking up the Arishem build or MOCing one while believing there may be more in the future that arent uniform to that design.

[ForgedInLego]

I sacrifice proportion frequently in my MOCs, but I feel like its a lot harder to get away with when you are recreating a semi human form. Even without comparing the photos you can innately tell the body is just too long

[Mandalorianknight]

2 hours ago, bricksandabear said:

I'm by no means a fan of the Hulkbuster, but I think what we learned and probably need to remember is that Lego didnt design it, it was a specific designer/person, and there's a decent chance they browse these boards... 

Sure, but it's not like anyone's sending death threats or saying bad things about the designer. (PSA: Don't do that). People are definately saying a pretty bad design, but whether that was due to a designer, or someone who mandated the designer fit the buildable iron man in it, or whatever, it's not like they're directly attacking them.

[THELEGOBATMAN]

It's okay to criticise someone's work — so long as you don't attack the person behind it, and preferably do it in a constructive way. (Well, unless they are terrible human beings or whatever, but this is not the case.)

I absolutely hate that set. The build is awful, totally out of proportions, it looks ridiculous in most parts (especially the helmet and the chest). 

A single boring minifigure is not enough for a 550€ set. Like seriously, this has to be the most unnecessary Iron Man variant, right? And, well, the fact that it's actually 550€. I mean... why? Feels like 400€ at most.

Edited October 21, 2022 by THELEGOBATMAN

[Scarilian]

1 hour ago, Mandalorianknight said:

People are definately saying a pretty bad design, but whether that was due to a designer, or someone who mandated the designer fit the buildable iron man in it, or whatever, it's not like they're directly attacking them.

I feel like its a combination, here is generally how I see it:
Dome Head: Lego, ensuring that the buildable Iron Man figure can be accessed easily
Stretched Torso: Lego, requiring it to fit the buildable Iron Man Figure
Flat Back/Cockpit piece: Lego, easy access to the figure if it's stuck or jammed in order to take it out if you could'nt get it from the top/front
Pricing: Lego, they originally aimed for $500 and we know it was increased by them directly to $550
Piece count: Lego, we know Lego decides upon piece counts so 4000 was probably the stated goal
Stickers: Lego, they tend to default to stickers now rather than prints
Detailing on Torso: Designer, all the elements are included but the spacing is wrong due to the stretching
Thinner legs at the joint: Designer, probably a stylistic choice but this is also present in his previous D2C Hulkbuster
Shoulder pads: Designer, a lot of the aspects are there but it has similar problems to the previous Hulkbuster in that it does not cover the joint enough (The shoulders can bend, just nobody seems to display them bent in official photos)

I'm sure the designer will eventually do a Q&A about all this, but in general I would attribute most the problems to the requirement to fit the buildable Iron Man figure which is almost certainly entirely on Lego. Similarly the pricing as mentioned is on Lego. It's why as i mentioned before, I'd have liked to see what this would have looked like if the buildable figure concept was not a focus and I would not be too surprised if it looked like the right image.

Image made by hachiroku

25 minutes ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

A single boring minifigure is not enough for a 550€ set. Like seriously, this has to be the most unnecessary Iron Man variant, right?

I have more to say, but this is almost certainly entirely on Lego. I feel there would be much more backlash if this was a fully unique Iron Man figure or if this figure was more desirable because then people would be angry its locked behind a $550 Hulkbuster that they may already have critiques of due to the design. Having it be a variant of the one included in the smaller Avengers Tower Promo set (40334) while also having it be based on a specific moment that was on-screen for perhaps less than 5 seconds are elements done to prevent people being angry about an exclusive figure while still providing an exclusive figure.

I know the designer has disclosed interest in this figure and why it was selected, I feel they were advised to pick something unique yet not something fans massively desired as the focal point of this set is the Hulkbuster and the Buildable Iron Man feature, honestly it could have wound up being a re-release of the 40334 version if they wanted.

Edited October 21, 2022 by Scarilian