Wizarding World 2022 - Rumors & Discussion

[droobles]

2 hours ago, evanevanevan said:

Is there a mechanism to make the Pensieve move up, or is this a poorly done render? It looks like it's placed in the center of the grill floor in the other photos

My guess is a mistake in the render. Overall I think the renders look pretty bad, I also noticed bricks clipping through the wing material on some Hungarian Horntail pictures.

Edited April 10, 2022 by droobles

[Legohp25]

Box art for Dumbledores Office has the 2018 great hall in the background. Seems as though Lego are encouraging mixing these Hogwarts sets 

[girlie-site-boots]

I think it's Sirius Escape has the Astronomy tower on the box too.

They do seem to be encouraging mixing of the older sets with new. 

[(Insert Name Here)]

Saw Fantastic Beasts: the secrets of Dumbledore earlier today. No spoilers obviously, I can see why Lego wouldn't really make a set off of it though.

But, I still wish we could have gotten Theseus Scamander and Younger Albus Dumbledore as minifigures.

[Clone OPatra]

5 hours ago, droobles said:

My guess is a mistake in the render. Overall I think the renders look pretty bad, I also noticed bricks clipping through the wing material on some Hungarian Horntail pictures.

The renders and official artwork for this line have been atrocious since 2020. It's really a shame because they do the sets such a disservice and I don't understand why this line has these awful renders compared to most other themes.

[Maple]

I could have gotten Hogwarts Express for 40% off. I snoozed, I lose. Also have a love / hate relationship with eBay. 

[joeee]

If this year's Whomping Willow can't hold the Ford Anglia, then it'll follow the film's WW design change where POA's WW doesn't seem like it could hold and smash a car. haha

[steam235]

The oddest feeling I have about these kits, is that I want the Shrieking Shack less now that I see it has the womping willow.  I mean, including it makes so much sense for the story and for play value. And the older womping willow set has been retired for a while so every who missed out on it will be excited to get a womping willow. But I look at that set, and I see the tree and I just think, I have that already. 

[Ravenclaw62442]

Lego trees just never look right.

[Alexandrina]

3 hours ago, Ravenclaw62442 said:

Lego trees just never look right.

It's about time they resurrected the cypress - still the best looking tree in Lego history

[BrickBob Studpants]

3 hours ago, Ravenclaw62442 said:

Lego trees just never look right.

I beg to differ 

[Alexandrina]

9 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

The renders and official artwork for this line have been atrocious since 2020.

Could be worse, I suppose - could be Aquaraiders 2007! But it's odd, especially since the minifigures prove that there's plenty of care going into the theme

[Spinozartre]

21 hours ago, Textorix said:

Thank you so much. Actually this started as just combining the official sets with no additional bricks. If you look at my old posts on my Instagram you can find versions with just official sets. To your last question, yes the Bell Towers is a MOC by JL Bricks that you can buy on Rebrickable (Instructions) and parts for it on BrickLink. I have built it in real life and it looks amazing.

I didn't buy them, I built this MOC only as 3D digital model in stud.io program (planning to make it IRL tho). But you can buy all grey roof pieces for cheap on BrickLink.

Thank so much for your answer.
Do all parts currently in sandgreen come in grey? It seems to me that this was not the case for all. Is there an easy way to find all the rooms and roofs? Or do you have to look for everything individually?
For your instagram, if you have a link, I'll go see. Will you also make a "3D" version with the new sets (without MOC) when they are officially released? Thank you for your work anyway, it helps <3 !

[chrisincanada]

Can anyone help please, I am trying to find any scene in the movies where Ginny is dressed in the same outfit as the 2010 Burrow figure (grey sweater and red pants). I have found a promo shot of Bonnie Wright in the outfit but not in the films. I doubt Lego would base a minifigure off a promo shot only right??

[Alexandrina]

3 minutes ago, chrisincanada said:

doubt Lego would base a minifigure off a promo shot only right??

Given the lead times for sets, they might not have had the actual movie to go off - and so it could have been a scene that was later deleted. Lego do have form for this: the original run back in the day included Peeves, who was cut out of the first film during production and never included in the later films.

[Decat]

18 minutes ago, chrisincanada said:

Can anyone help please, I am trying to find any scene in the movies where Ginny is dressed in the same outfit as the 2010 Burrow figure (grey sweater and red pants). I have found a promo shot of Bonnie Wright in the outfit but not in the films. I doubt Lego would base a minifigure off a promo shot only right??

Ginny's outfit in that set Is based off Order of the Pheonix, when they go the ministry at the climax of the film. Even weirder, is that they re-used that torso for Hermione in the 2011 Diagon Alley! I guess Lego wasn't as fussed on accuracy back then...

[chrisincanada]

8 minutes ago, Decat said:

Ginny's outfit in that set Is based off Order of the Pheonix, when they go the ministry at the climax of the film. Even weirder, is that they re-used that torso for Hermione in the 2011 Diagon Alley! I guess Lego wasn't as fussed on accuracy back then...

Ah bravo, thank you! I started looking at HBP onwards as I thought it was from later on. I am.adding some 2010/11 minifigures to my collection but didn't want this one if it wasn't from the films. Just got Bellatrix for a great price on brick link and will add this Ginny and the DH Neville to my cart despite his somewhat over tanned neckline! My only reluctance with Neville is that we get a new version in a future Battle of Hogwarts set now that DH is no longer off the table for Lego

[Alexandrina]

56 minutes ago, Decat said:

I guess Lego wasn't as fussed on accuracy back then...

They really weren't in the old days! Ron with a blue sweater over a grey shirt appears in three Philosopher's Stone sets (it's the only non-uniform Ron from the first film's sets in the original run) yet he only wears blue in one scene in the entire film - and then, he's got a brown jacket in the film which isn't present on the minifig. In fact, I don't believe any Hogwarts student's representation in the original wave is movie-accurate.

[Clone OPatra]

34 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

In fact, I don't believe any Hogwarts student's representation in the original wave is movie-accurate.

It's excusable why the lines for the first couple of films weren't accurate, given that they were developed before the films were out and it was only LEGO's second ever full fledged Licensed theme. Those lines had more in common with other pre-film Harry Potter artwork and merchandise than they did with the films themselves.

What's weirder is some of the decisions around the 2010/11 line. I think what they were trying to achieve was a line of sets that universally captured the Harry Potter series without being scene or movie specific for the most part. Harry himself for instance had a very kiddy smiley face, but a slightly older-looking frowning one. The Hogwarts sets had a mish-mash of references to multiple different films. Diagon Alley itself was a mish-mash with mainly references to the first two films but also the Weasley Twins in their suits.

All in all it was the best Harry Potter stuff to date, but when the 2018 wave came along with its focused, specific sets with a high level of attention to film detail, I knew we were in for something quite different and special.

[evanevanevan]

3 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

I beg to differ 

I feel like this set actually highlights the main issue with LEGO trees - the lack of foliage is underwhelming. A real tree would have an abundance of leaves, though I can see how designers might consider 10x the leaves way too tedious for a builder. A solution could be a new design element that makes leaves less flat?

[Alexandrina]

2 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

What's weirder is some of the decisions around the 2010/11 line. I think what they were trying to achieve was a line of sets that universally captured the Harry Potter series without being scene or movie specific for the most part.

It doesn't help that licensed minifigures in general were falling off the rails at this point. Harry Potter 2.0 came just after Indiana Jones (and some of those minifigures are ugly as sin! *cough* Else *cough*) and around the same time we had the Toy Story long-leg abominations and the ugly Clone Wars minifigure faces - not to mention the odd decisions of Ben10. Definitely a great deal better this time around!

[BlueberryWaffles]

2 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

What's weirder is some of the decisions around the 2010/11 line. I think what they were trying to achieve was a line of sets that universally captured the Harry Potter series without being scene or movie specific for the most part. Harry himself for instance had a very kiddy smiley face, but a slightly older-looking frowning one. The Hogwarts sets had a mish-mash of references to multiple different films. Diagon Alley itself was a mish-mash with mainly references to the first two films but also the Weasley Twins in their suits.

Looking back, I feel that it was Lego's way of keeping the theme alive alongside the popularity of the later movies without necessarily being based on them since they were darker. It was also the first time anything from the theme had really been "remade". Compared to Star Wars which got new versions of the same ships every few years alongside tie-ins to new releases, the HP theme up until that point had been just going alongside the movies as they came out. Being able to look back on the movies for the first time was probably what resulted in the jumble of references we got in those waves.

[hoiharry]

2 hours ago, evanevanevan said:

I feel like this set actually highlights the main issue with LEGO trees - the lack of foliage is underwhelming. A real tree would have an abundance of leaves, though I can see how designers might consider 10x the leaves way too tedious for a builder. A solution could be a new design element that makes leaves less flat?

I never understood why they make you build the branches straight. I have the treehouse myself and if you fold al the branches down a bit, it looks waaaay better. It's not so flat on the top and it creates more of a dome shape.

15 hours ago, (Insert Name Here) said:

Saw Fantastic Beasts: the secrets of Dumbledore earlier today. No spoilers obviously, I can see why Lego wouldn't really make a set off of it though.

But, I still wish we could have gotten Theseus Scamander and Younger Albus Dumbledore as minifigures.

I saw it two times already and I love it :D But yeah, it's a little hard I think to create lego sets for it (still really want it tho ). I hope, when there may be a 3rd minifig series, they give us some Fantastic Beasts characters like the first wave.

[BrickBob Studpants]

4 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

Harry himself for instance had a very kiddy smiley face, but a slightly older-looking frowning one.

This really bothered me back then. Harry in the Battle of Hogwarts set looking the exact same as in the Dobby’s release set, uniform and all, was just plain silly  Using regular legs for the kids was also an odd decision, considering short legs were already used for a kid character (Boba) the very year they were introduced. 

The 2010/11 assortment was good for what it was, but the 2018-now stuff blows it out of the water in every regard IMO. Katana Aragog was laughable, the DA D2C almost looks like a regular set by today‘s standards, the unprinted Goblin heads were wayyyy outdated even then, the Burrow is pretty inaccurate overall, Flitwick’s moustache looks goofy, the 4L bars really don’t work as wands, and the lack of mould budget was very apparent  The range still has a place in my heart though!

Btw, too bad Guyon seems to have left the forum for good. I really would‘ve loved to hear his take on the new sets 

[BacktoBricks]

10 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

This really bothered me back then. Harry in the Battle of Hogwarts set looking the exact same as in the Dobby’s release set, uniform and all, was just plain silly  Using regular legs for the kids was also an odd decision, considering short legs were already used for a kid character (Boba) the very year they were introduced. 

The 2010/11 assortment was good for what it was, but the 2018-now stuff blows it out of the water in every regard IMO. Katana Aragog was laughable, the DA D2C almost looks like a regular set by today‘s standards, the unprinted Goblin heads were wayyyy outdated even then, the Burrow is pretty inaccurate overall, Flitwick’s moustache looks goofy, the 4L bars really don’t work as wands, and the lack of mould budget was very apparent  The range still has a place in my heart though!

Btw, too bad Guyon seems to have left the forum for good. I really would‘ve loved to hear his take on the new sets 

I wasn't collecting then, but I'm really not bothered now because they have all definitely been improved on. All we need now is a fresh second task and Durmstrang Ship and I think only pure nostalgia or complete collecting would drive people to buy sets from that era.

Guyon does seem to have flown the nest. I wasn't on a few weeks back when there was some drama on these forums apparently but I'm guessing it was something to do with all that. 🤔