RichardGoring Posted September 19, 2024 Posted September 19, 2024 24 minutes ago, DisneyLego said: So looks like the Disney castle is finally switching over to new packaging vs the current 100 years “limited edition” version. any chance there are changes to the set itself? hoping there’s not but would rather know now before prices skyrocket Does this mean I have to buy another version because it's a different box?
DisneyLego Posted September 19, 2024 Posted September 19, 2024 9 minutes ago, RichardGoring said: Does this mean I have to buy another version because it's a different box? Lol. That’s kind of what worries me…I can’t imagine LEGO actually thinks people will buy a second one just because of the box change alone. So are there going to be changes to the set itself to justify a second purchase or did Disney just strong-arm them to change the box.
TheFriedChimken Posted September 20, 2024 Posted September 20, 2024 (edited) On 9/19/2024 at 4:47 PM, JeanGreyForever said: If you watch the interviews with the directors, cast, and crew for the movies you mentioned (Cinderella, Jungle Book, Alice), you'll see that they absolutely gush over the original films. Particularly for Cinderella and Jungle Book, everyone involved in those remakes made clear that they love the original films and wanted these remakes to be a loving tribute to them. With the Renaissance movies like BATB and TLM, it seems like they couldn't stop talking about how flawed the original films were and how they needed to be fixed and upgraded. Snow White sadly has gone the latter route. The remakes starting with BATB have all been about "improving" these classics for a new audience, rather than serving as a loving ode. Although it happened even before BATB, like with Maleficent where they pretended it would be more feminist and empowered. BTW, an interesting fact is that Disney wanted Emma Watson for Cinderella. She refused because she said she had no personal connection to Cinderella and didn't think she could play her. I have issues with her Belle but I applaud her for not taking a character she doesn't like and trying to force her to fit her vision like what's happening with Snow White now. Sequelitis is the path Disney is choosing now. We'll see how well it works out but I guess it's a safer bet than their original works lately which have really been awful. You can't sell their merchandise even heavily discounted. I agree with you there that I think Lego could be doing a lot more with the Disney franchise. Not just big sets but a lot of smaller sets too. I think they've completely given up the Mickey Mouse themed sets they used to make. I wasn't that impressed with the sets they did make but they at least had some good things going for them. I always wanted Lego to make a Lego Toontown like in the Disney Parks. Sets for Mickey's house, Minnie's house, Donald's houseboat, Chip and Tale's treehouse, Scrooge's money bin, etc. You could put them all together to build your own Toontown. I'm guessing the Up and Peter Pan sets were only being made for Disney's 100th Anniversary and there was never a plan for more similar sets like more dioramas. I know people thought the train set with parade floats would mean more sets like that but I always had a feeling that was going to be a one-off. Yeah, the fact that the Genie headpiece wasn't seamless with his head was something I saw a lot of people complain about. I can see why they dropped it then. Thank you again, it really wasn't anything at all inventive on my part. I just copied what they did with Genie Jafar so they could both stand next to each other and not look off. In general, I prefer accuracy too which is why I did wish they had made the headpiece for Genie Jafar but alas, that doesn't seem likely now. I have seen the interviews for Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland, and the cast are most certainly in awe of how they can bring such treasured animation to life. I have not bothered with recent interviews because I imagined that they would be very much as you've described. I don't get what there is to improve because whatever justification they give seems to sprout from misconception. While I am all for feminism/equalism, I do feel the recent live-actions have been almost tokenistic and, in my interpretation, superficial in how they show empowerment. I feel it's one thing to have a woman character and treat her as an 'the empowered woman' vs a 'rightfully empowered individual'; we need her to be strong, independent, in charge, in control because she is a woman vs she is an individual who wants these things and has the right to be that way regardless of who she is. I did like Maleficient but I think minor tweaks are necessary to shift away from the former and focus on the later but, nonetheless, is was in no way to the same intensity of the later live-actions. I have to say, Lily James hit her role as Cinderella out of the park - so I can't imagine it have being a better portrayal with Emma Watson. With Belle, from a visual standpoint and with the little I knowledge I had of Emma outside of her acting, I could see why she might have been drawn to Belle. At the time, I knew she was a very active feminist and that she was not afraid to challenge expectations surrounding her career and life passions. I really and truly thought she was going to be excellent as Belle. After watching BATB, I was puzzled with a lot of decisions and with some research found the decisions I had issue with to be a result of Emma. It seemed to me that the things she took issue with had to do with how they balanced with her perceptions. Out of curiosity I took brief interest in trying to understand who she is outside of her acting to make sense of her basis for the decisions. I am in no way an expert and this is strictly my opinion, but it seemed that she has a very rigid take on what qualifies as feministic attributes and, to some extent, is not cautious on how certain opinions she may consider empowering can be rather shameful to those who do not want to pursue the same passions as her or with the same attitude. To me, it seemed as though this trickled into the film. As for Snow White, I think it was heavily unwise to pick Rachel Zegler. Focusing solely on who she is outside of the upcoming SW film and its press, she has always come across to me as way too charged with negativity and fairly demeaning. I can't remember where I am drawing from, be it an interview or something I read - likely a snippet of an interview on Instagram, but I remember something said at the time of Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes that felt like conceited bashes at the character of Katniss with minor superior gloating for her character. Like at first glance she seemed like a nice person, but as I heard/saw more stuff outside of films in general, I could feel an aggressiveness to how she projects opinions. Everyone has a right to an opinion, I want to be clear on that, but it's another thing to not be respectful and criticise other opinions to elevate your own. Moving away from my rant (sorry, bad habit of mine), I wish they brought back the Mickey themed sets as I missed out on a lot of the Mickey crew characters. A Toon Town would be ever so cute, and I would love that for trying to lay out a mini Walt Disney World with the castle and train station (which I know is Disneyland). I would have loved if Lego went in that direction and did more floats to display parades. Oh well... Well thank you for sharing what you did with Genie because, as silly as I might sound, I too was annoyed by the differences and never thought to replicate what they did with Jafar onto Genie. I don't think they'll bring back that piece either. I think if keeping that piece in production was something they were wanting to do, they would have done so with that genie looking villain from Ninjago (sorry I don't know much about that property to know the character's name). Seems like they prefer the style for the hair that they did with that character when designing genie Jafar. 18 hours ago, RichardGoring said: So looks like the Disney castle is finally switching over to new packaging vs the current 100 years “limited edition” version. any chance there are changes to the set itself? hoping there’s not but would rather know now before prices skyrocket 18 hours ago, DisneyLego said: Lol. That’s kind of what worries me…I can’t imagine LEGO actually thinks people will buy a second one just because of the box change alone. So are there going to be changes to the set itself to justify a second purchase or did Disney just strong-arm them to change the box. What was so specific about the current box apart from that Disney 100 label in the top corner and silver trim? I don't get the purpose in changing the box with the exception on them continuing the product beyond the 100th anniversary and for a few years as they did with the last edition of the castle. I don't feel they would change the build because what would they change? As much as I would love the original castle colours, I don't see any indication that the current Cinderella castle in the park reverting back and would not make sense for Lego to go against this. I can't imagine how you would improve the castle interior as I don't think there are any superior easter eggs to swap with and the current ones help fill up space. If something were to change, maybe the minifigures but I highly doubt that despite being one way to convince people into buying another. Edited September 20, 2024 by TheFriedChimken
BrickBob Studpants Posted September 20, 2024 Posted September 20, 2024 Changing the boxart isn‘t anything new. They did that for some Star Wars sets in 2008 and more recently for the original 3 Mario starter packs that didn‘t have the peculiarly-shaped boxes anymore. Oh, and with the new law in the US concerning button cells in toys, they also had to change the boxes for all the sets with light or sound bricks. And I‘m pretty sure there were several sets that received new boxart when Creator Expert was turned into Icons So yeah, the set will remain the same. Moreover, if they changed anything, the set would likely receive a new number. Granted, when the nameless pilot in the Resistance Bomber was replaced with Finch Dallow the set kept its number, but that was done to fix a mistake, so it‘s hardly comparable.
TheFriedChimken Posted September 20, 2024 Posted September 20, 2024 (edited) **Ignore - I went to fix a typo and ended up quoting myself on accident 🪦 Edited September 20, 2024 by TheFriedChimken
JeanGreyForever Posted September 21, 2024 Posted September 21, 2024 On 9/19/2024 at 10:45 PM, TheFriedChimken said: I have seen the interviews for Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland, and the cast are most certainly in awe of how they can bring such treasured animation to life. I have not bothered with recent interviews because I imagined that they would be very much as you've described. I don't get what there is to improve because whatever justification they give seems to sprout from misconception. While I am all for feminism/equalism, I do feel the recent live-actions have been almost tokenistic and, in my interpretation, superficial in how they show empowerment. I feel it's one thing to have a woman character and treat her as an 'the empowered woman' vs a 'rightfully empowered individual'; we need her to be strong, independent, in charge, in control because she is a woman vs she is an individual who wants these things and has the right to be that way regardless of who she is. I did like Maleficient but I think minor tweaks are necessary to shift away from the former and focus on the later but, nonetheless, is was in no way to the same intensity of the later live-actions. I have to say, Lily James hit her role as Cinderella out of the park - so I can't imagine it have being a better portrayal with Emma Watson. With Belle, from a visual standpoint and with the little I knowledge I had of Emma outside of her acting, I could see why she might have been drawn to Belle. At the time, I knew she was a very active feminist and that she was not afraid to challenge expectations surrounding her career and life passions. I really and truly thought she was going to be excellent as Belle. After watching BATB, I was puzzled with a lot of decisions and with some research found the decisions I had issue with to be a result of Emma. It seemed to me that the things she took issue with had to do with how they balanced with her perceptions. Out of curiosity I took brief interest in trying to understand who she is outside of her acting to make sense of her basis for the decisions. I am in no way an expert and this is strictly my opinion, but it seemed that she has a very rigid take on what qualifies as feministic attributes and, to some extent, is not cautious on how certain opinions she may consider empowering can be rather shameful to those who do not want to pursue the same passions as her or with the same attitude. To me, it seemed as though this trickled into the film. As for Snow White, I think it was heavily unwise to pick Rachel Zegler. Focusing solely on who she is outside of the upcoming SW film and its press, she has always come across to me as way too charged with negativity and fairly demeaning. I can't remember where I am drawing from, be it an interview or something I read - likely a snippet of an interview on Instagram, but I remember something said at the time of Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes that felt like conceited bashes at the character of Katniss with minor superior gloating for her character. Like at first glance she seemed like a nice person, but as I heard/saw more stuff outside of films in general, I could feel an aggressiveness to how she projects opinions. Everyone has a right to an opinion, I want to be clear on that, but it's another thing to not be respectful and criticise other opinions to elevate your own. Moving away from my rant (sorry, bad habit of mine), I wish they brought back the Mickey themed sets as I missed out on a lot of the Mickey crew characters. A Toon Town would be ever so cute, and I would love that for trying to lay out a mini Walt Disney World with the castle and train station (which I know is Disneyland). I would have loved if Lego went in that direction and did more floats to display parades. Oh well... Well thank you for sharing what you did with Genie because, as silly as I might sound, I too was annoyed by the differences and never thought to replicate what they did with Jafar onto Genie. I don't think they'll bring back that piece either. I think if keeping that piece in production was something they were wanting to do, they would have done so with that genie looking villain from Ninjago (sorry I don't know much about that property to know the character's name). Seems like they prefer the style for the hair that they did with that character when designing genie Jafar. I couldn't have said it better myself. It feels like these newer movies are more making lip service to what they think feminism is, which is a really narrow range of what's deemed acceptable. It's crossed over to the animated movies too because Disney's made it very clear now that the animated heroines aren't allowed to have love interests anymore. Apparently having a love interest makes you weak, which is why every Disney heroine now is cut from the same Marvel mold of action heroine with quippy lines to boot. Maleficent had some of the same problems in its promotion because I remember Elle Fanning made some derogatory comments about Aurora (although they're pretty mild compared to what the later live-action films said about the originals) and how she was going to be improved. But even with 2 live-action movies, she's still a generic heroine who leaves no impact on the audience. The original Aurora may be more of a cipher than a full-fledged character, but she's still iconic to this day. I think Lily James was perfect as Cinderella so I'm glad Emma rejected the role. Belle should have been a better fit for her, but even as a fan of Emma, I wasn't impressed with the final product. I admire her as a person and for her views but I think she imposed too much of her vision on Belle, to the detriment of the character. Disney must have been really desperate to work with her because they more or less gave her carte blanche to do what she wanted on the movie. She refused to wear a corset, came up with the idea of Belle wearing boots instead of ballet flats, and the ballgown design was completely hers. Which is why the dress became such a flop and had little basis in historical accuracy and just in general lacked any magic, because it was based entirely on what Emma wanted against the costume designer's plans. It felt like she was just reprising Hermione again but treating the Beast's castle like it was still Hogwarts. I remember she mused in an interview that if there was a BATB sequel, she would want the plot to revolve around Belle opening up a school in the castle for all the village kids. Emma also starred in Greta Gerwig's Little Women where she played Meg. I'm surprised she accepted that role since Meg is everything she doesn't really believe in but because there, she was only hired to act and not influence the production, she didn't try and change Meg's character into something she wasn't. Also while I love Emma from Harry Potter, the truth is that she never really grew as an actress and so even disregarding the changes she made to Belle, I don't think she did an all that great job just with the acting part. I think Disney should have tried to push her out of her comfort zone a little more. She rejected La La Land for BATB so I guess she felt this was the more important project and it certainly earned her lots of money (she had a deal in her contract that she'd earn a bonus if the movie made more than a billion, which it easily did) but I don't think in the long run it helped extend her acting career or grant her much prestige. Hence why she was cast in Little Women (in an ironic twist of fate, here she was replacing Emma Stone's role as Meg, whereas Emma Stone replaced her in La La Land) but as Meg instead of the main character Jo. I haven't watched Rachel Zegler in anything but I know online she was already unpopular because she was considered to have an attitude and be a bit brusque in asserting her opinions. And apparently in China, she's really hated because of a video that went viral of her snubbing a Chinese fan although I don't know if that's been taken out of context or not. What I don't understand though is why she agreed to play Snow White when she's openly admitted that she dislikes the character and thinks she's so regressive. Emma's Belle wasn't all that great but at least she liked the character (or how she viewed the character), while turning down Cinderella as she didn't feel emotionally connected to her. So don't worry about your "rant," because I'm prone to them too. Which Mickey characters are you missing? Goofy is probably the hardest to get your hands on if you're looking specifically for the regular version of Goofy rather than him in an alternate outfit since he was only in the now retired Disneyland Train Station set. I'm curious if we'll ever get a proper Haunted Mansion set rather than just the microscale one. I would have liked more parade floats too although considering how elaborate the Disney Parks ones are, I would have liked larger-scale ones more strictly designed on the park floats. But I'm sure that would be rather expensive. I didn't know they made another Genie type character in the Ninjago theme. It doesn't surprise me to hear the genie headpiece is retired now. I looked that character up and it does seem like Lego prefers this style of hair now. It works though so I don't mind it too much as long as there's some consistency. I wouldn't have had a problem with Genie Jafar not having that headpiece if they hadn't already established it as a piece.
roselemontea Posted September 21, 2024 Posted September 21, 2024 Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but the Disney Idea reviews are out!
OttoRiver Posted September 21, 2024 Posted September 21, 2024 A nitpick from me: Why doesn't Lilo's skirt block have printing on the backside as well? Seems like its the same pattern on the front and back of her torso, could have just duplicated the print on both sides. Seems lazy. On the other hand, Belle getting back printing on her skirt when none of the other Princesses from the CMF or castle got any is wild. Wonder why Belle got it but Cinderella or Tiana weren't considered.
BacktoBricks Posted September 21, 2024 Posted September 21, 2024 (edited) 2 hours ago, roselemontea said: Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but the Disney Idea reviews are out! Thank you. I hadn't thought to look for reviews yet, but just watched Tiago Catarino's. I have to say Simba looks much better from the front to me than from what I could see in the images, but I'm still not keen on his side profile. And I agree with Tiago that Mickey feels a bit disjointed with his sleeves being all tiled and sloped off, but his torso being left studded. It's not a set I will be picking up as I don't love it enough to display, but I do want the minfigures. That being said, I'm guessing the set's reasonable price is because most of the 'exclusive' minifigures will soon be used in future sets and therefore the budget for the minifigures has been spread across them thus helping to reduce the price of this one. Hopefully by next year the prices for the minifigures won't be too bad so I don't end up having to just buy the set. Edited September 21, 2024 by BacktoBricks
strangely Posted September 21, 2024 Posted September 21, 2024 (edited) 1 hour ago, OttoRiver said: A nitpick from me: Why doesn't Lilo's skirt block have printing on the backside as well? Seems like its the same pattern on the front and back of her torso, could have just duplicated the print on both sides. Seems lazy. On the other hand, Belle getting back printing on her skirt when none of the other Princesses from the CMF or castle got any is wild. Wonder why Belle got it but Cinderella or Tiana weren't considered. Probably a budget constraint for the Disney 100 sets I imagine. Or possibly they listened to the criticisms and added it to Belle for this year. I'm just glad she doesn't have the random sparkles that the Disney 100 Princesses had and as a result is actually accurate to the movie. Edited September 21, 2024 by strangely
JeanGreyForever Posted September 22, 2024 Posted September 22, 2024 I wonder how Lilo would look with Mulan's hair or Lucius Malfoy's hair in black. Mulan's hair would allow her to keep the pink flower.
BrickBob Studpants Posted September 22, 2024 Posted September 22, 2024 Lots of minidoll sets in January (including Moana 2 sets), but according to @Lego_Minecraft_Goat, there‘s another „Classic“ set apart from the Lilo & Stitch house in March, namely 43262 (524 pcs, $65). Sounds promising!
Aramar Posted September 22, 2024 Posted September 22, 2024 4 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said: Lots of minidoll sets in January (including Moana 2 sets), but according to @Lego_Minecraft_Goat, there‘s another „Classic“ set apart from the Lilo & Stitch house in March, namely 43262 (524 pcs, $65). Sounds promising! That's interesting! For that price and amount of pieces I could see a diorama like the Peter Pan one, so I guess it could be the ball scene from Beauty and the Beast. Fingers crossed! Or maybe it's a second Lilo and Stitch with a spaceship as a complement to the house.
THELEGOBATMAN Posted September 22, 2024 Posted September 22, 2024 5 hours ago, Aramar said: Or maybe it's a second Lilo and Stitch with a spaceship as a complement to the house. That'd break me financially. I think it's based on another property tho.
BrickBob Studpants Posted September 22, 2024 Posted September 22, 2024 3 hours ago, THELEGOBATMAN said: I think it's based on another property tho. Agreed, simply because the „Classic“ Disney sets so far have been rather random when it comes to the films/franchises they pick. Two sets from the same film in the same wave would be rather unusual Also, before we kick the hype machine into overdrive, don’t forget that a buildable character can‘t be ruled out yet!
JeanGreyForever Posted September 23, 2024 Posted September 23, 2024 It could be a movie with an anniversary in 2025. That would be films like Pinocchio, Fantasia, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, The Aristocats, and Pocahontas. If it's not Lilo & Stich or Beauty and the Beast-themed, maybe it's Pinocchio so that Geppetto figure can be reused.
TheFriedChimken Posted September 23, 2024 Posted September 23, 2024 On 9/21/2024 at 3:31 PM, JeanGreyForever said: I couldn't have said it better myself. It feels like these newer movies are more making lip service to what they think feminism is, which is a really narrow range of what's deemed acceptable. It's crossed over to the animated movies too because Disney's made it very clear now that the animated heroines aren't allowed to have love interests anymore. Apparently having a love interest makes you weak, which is why every Disney heroine now is cut from the same Marvel mold of action heroine with quippy lines to boot. Maleficent had some of the same problems in its promotion because I remember Elle Fanning made some derogatory comments about Aurora (although they're pretty mild compared to what the later live-action films said about the originals) and how she was going to be improved. But even with 2 live-action movies, she's still a generic heroine who leaves no impact on the audience. The original Aurora may be more of a cipher than a full-fledged character, but she's still iconic to this day. I think Lily James was perfect as Cinderella so I'm glad Emma rejected the role. Belle should have been a better fit for her, but even as a fan of Emma, I wasn't impressed with the final product. I admire her as a person and for her views but I think she imposed too much of her vision on Belle, to the detriment of the character. Disney must have been really desperate to work with her because they more or less gave her carte blanche to do what she wanted on the movie. She refused to wear a corset, came up with the idea of Belle wearing boots instead of ballet flats, and the ballgown design was completely hers. Which is why the dress became such a flop and had little basis in historical accuracy and just in general lacked any magic, because it was based entirely on what Emma wanted against the costume designer's plans. It felt like she was just reprising Hermione again but treating the Beast's castle like it was still Hogwarts. I remember she mused in an interview that if there was a BATB sequel, she would want the plot to revolve around Belle opening up a school in the castle for all the village kids. Emma also starred in Greta Gerwig's Little Women where she played Meg. I'm surprised she accepted that role since Meg is everything she doesn't really believe in but because there, she was only hired to act and not influence the production, she didn't try and change Meg's character into something she wasn't. Also while I love Emma from Harry Potter, the truth is that she never really grew as an actress and so even disregarding the changes she made to Belle, I don't think she did an all that great job just with the acting part. I think Disney should have tried to push her out of her comfort zone a little more. She rejected La La Land for BATB so I guess she felt this was the more important project and it certainly earned her lots of money (she had a deal in her contract that she'd earn a bonus if the movie made more than a billion, which it easily did) but I don't think in the long run it helped extend her acting career or grant her much prestige. Hence why she was cast in Little Women (in an ironic twist of fate, here she was replacing Emma Stone's role as Meg, whereas Emma Stone replaced her in La La Land) but as Meg instead of the main character Jo. I haven't watched Rachel Zegler in anything but I know online she was already unpopular because she was considered to have an attitude and be a bit brusque in asserting her opinions. And apparently in China, she's really hated because of a video that went viral of her snubbing a Chinese fan although I don't know if that's been taken out of context or not. What I don't understand though is why she agreed to play Snow White when she's openly admitted that she dislikes the character and thinks she's so regressive. Emma's Belle wasn't all that great but at least she liked the character (or how she viewed the character), while turning down Cinderella as she didn't feel emotionally connected to her. So don't worry about your "rant," because I'm prone to them too. Which Mickey characters are you missing? Goofy is probably the hardest to get your hands on if you're looking specifically for the regular version of Goofy rather than him in an alternate outfit since he was only in the now retired Disneyland Train Station set. I'm curious if we'll ever get a proper Haunted Mansion set rather than just the microscale one. I would have liked more parade floats too although considering how elaborate the Disney Parks ones are, I would have liked larger-scale ones more strictly designed on the park floats. But I'm sure that would be rather expensive. I didn't know they made another Genie type character in the Ninjago theme. It doesn't surprise me to hear the genie headpiece is retired now. I looked that character up and it does seem like Lego prefers this style of hair now. It works though so I don't mind it too much as long as there's some consistency. I wouldn't have had a problem with Genie Jafar not having that headpiece if they hadn't already established it as a piece. I don't understand how such narrow-minded and critical thinking is in any way more beneficial than supposedly permitting "dated" yet always innocent/harmless concepts (different when it is in fact sensitive/problematic). I think it's ridiculous that love interests have to be culled nowadays due to it somehow being demeaning to a person's independence and individuality. If anything, love interests are a great opportunity to demonstrate a healthy relationship where someone actually respects and recognises the other's needs and wants; a point of comparison for when a person values you for you and wants nothing but the best for you. How in any way does that take away from empowerment if it pretty much illustrates having support. I never saw the interviews for Maleficient to hear Fanning's comments, but nonetheless I think it's very unwarranted to have any issue with Aurora. Apart from having to be rescued, in the little screen time she has she actually expresses her own personal wishes and desires in life, even opposing her forced isolation which in fact saved her life if you think about it. Either way, I wouldn't think Fanning's portrayal really did anything to "elevate" the character for her criticisms to be valid. I too found her quite forgettable and don't consider her Aurora a definitive one due to how little was fleshed out. Emma is a very interesting person regarding her nature. A long time ago, I would have thought that she hasn't grown much out of Hermione, but I think it's more so a lot of Hermione is her; hence, this could possibly be why she is drawn to characters she can relate to. She is no way a bad actress, but I will agree that maybe she hasn't had many opportunities to grow her range when the Harry Potter movies were such a big chapter in her acting career and, if there is any truth to my interpretation of Emma and Hermione, valued her putting herself into the character. I agree with all those things you pointed out that she changed being rather inconvenient and ultimately backfiring for the character portrayal/design, but I think it may have been a case of Emma doing only what she knows to do. Take for instances, Hermione's dress being changed from blue to pink to suit Emma. I don't know if there was much negative criticisms at the time but I've heard many people often like it, and perhaps she believed from a moment like this that changes for any character will always have a positive impact; however, the reality is that sometimes they do but sometimes they don't - and in the case with Belle we've seen the dress before in animation to compare to while Hermione's dress was text written in a book. I do give more credit to Emma as I agree that she was, in her own way, attempting to work with what she felt suited her. As for Rachel, I don't think I can say the same. I don't want to say too much about her regarding Snow White in case I happen to start a rage fest on Eurobricks, but I do absolutely agree with what you have said - she simply just shouldn't have done it if she didn't like it. Currently I only have Mickey and Minnie in their regular versions. I was intending on getting the rest but I figured Lego would maybe reintroduce them with Disney 100 and I have since been waiting. Goofy was one I was really hoping to come in a new set. Would be so cool if they made the WDW train station with him and some other Mickey Mouse crew characters. I just want the whole park at this point lol 🤣🤣🤣 I've bought the black ponytail for Gemie as I couldn't find a spare. I'm quite keen to swap it out although I do agree with being annoyed by the fact that there was a more accurate piece established. 14 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said: Lots of minidoll sets in January (including Moana 2 sets), but according to @Lego_Minecraft_Goat, there‘s another „Classic“ set apart from the Lilo & Stitch house in March, namely 43262 (524 pcs, $65). Sounds promising! Yay for the classic set!!! I can't wait to see what it is! 14 hours ago, Aramar said: That's interesting! For that price and amount of pieces I could see a diorama like the Peter Pan one, so I guess it could be the ball scene from Beauty and the Beast. Fingers crossed! Or maybe it's a second Lilo and Stitch with a spaceship as a complement to the house. 1 hour ago, JeanGreyForever said: It could be a movie with an anniversary in 2025. That would be films like Pinocchio, Fantasia, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, The Aristocats, and Pocahontas. If it's not Lilo & Stich or Beauty and the Beast-themed, maybe it's Pinocchio so that Geppetto figure can be reused. I do like both the ideas of a BATB diorama or even an anniversary set. I'm not crash on a space ship for Lilo and Sitch as I like that to be a set that comes up a bit later so other films have a chance to be actualised into sets. Honestly, I would be happy with any of those anniversary sets but I think they might go for Pinocchio, specifically Geppetto's workshop, considering that two main characters have already been introduced.
JeanGreyForever Posted September 23, 2024 Posted September 23, 2024 20 hours ago, TheFriedChimken said: I don't understand how such narrow-minded and critical thinking is in any way more beneficial than supposedly permitting "dated" yet always innocent/harmless concepts (different when it is in fact sensitive/problematic). I think it's ridiculous that love interests have to be culled nowadays due to it somehow being demeaning to a person's independence and individuality. If anything, love interests are a great opportunity to demonstrate a healthy relationship where someone actually respects and recognises the other's needs and wants; a point of comparison for when a person values you for you and wants nothing but the best for you. How in any way does that take away from empowerment if it pretty much illustrates having support. I never saw the interviews for Maleficient to hear Fanning's comments, but nonetheless I think it's very unwarranted to have any issue with Aurora. Apart from having to be rescued, in the little screen time she has she actually expresses her own personal wishes and desires in life, even opposing her forced isolation which in fact saved her life if you think about it. Either way, I wouldn't think Fanning's portrayal really did anything to "elevate" the character for her criticisms to be valid. I too found her quite forgettable and don't consider her Aurora a definitive one due to how little was fleshed out. Emma is a very interesting person regarding her nature. A long time ago, I would have thought that she hasn't grown much out of Hermione, but I think it's more so a lot of Hermione is her; hence, this could possibly be why she is drawn to characters she can relate to. She is no way a bad actress, but I will agree that maybe she hasn't had many opportunities to grow her range when the Harry Potter movies were such a big chapter in her acting career and, if there is any truth to my interpretation of Emma and Hermione, valued her putting herself into the character. I agree with all those things you pointed out that she changed being rather inconvenient and ultimately backfiring for the character portrayal/design, but I think it may have been a case of Emma doing only what she knows to do. Take for instances, Hermione's dress being changed from blue to pink to suit Emma. I don't know if there was much negative criticisms at the time but I've heard many people often like it, and perhaps she believed from a moment like this that changes for any character will always have a positive impact; however, the reality is that sometimes they do but sometimes they don't - and in the case with Belle we've seen the dress before in animation to compare to while Hermione's dress was text written in a book. I do give more credit to Emma as I agree that she was, in her own way, attempting to work with what she felt suited her. As for Rachel, I don't think I can say the same. I don't want to say too much about her regarding Snow White in case I happen to start a rage fest on Eurobricks, but I do absolutely agree with what you have said - she simply just shouldn't have done it if she didn't like it. Currently I only have Mickey and Minnie in their regular versions. I was intending on getting the rest but I figured Lego would maybe reintroduce them with Disney 100 and I have since been waiting. Goofy was one I was really hoping to come in a new set. Would be so cool if they made the WDW train station with him and some other Mickey Mouse crew characters. I just want the whole park at this point lol 🤣🤣🤣 I've bought the black ponytail for Gemie as I couldn't find a spare. I'm quite keen to swap it out although I do agree with being annoyed by the fact that there was a more accurate piece established. I do like both the ideas of a BATB diorama or even an anniversary set. I'm not crash on a space ship for Lilo and Sitch as I like that to be a set that comes up a bit later so other films have a chance to be actualised into sets. Honestly, I would be happy with any of those anniversary sets but I think they might go for Pinocchio, specifically Geppetto's workshop, considering that two main characters have already been introduced. There was an article I read about how Disney's management has really changed, especially in the animation sector. After the John Lasseter #MeToo scandal, Disney pushed to replace all the old guard of animation with a younger, more diverse group of people. However, these artists don't have the same qualifications or schooling as the old guard of animators did. Most of them are Tumblr/Deviantart artists and this is why the storytelling for the latest films, particularly starting with Raya, has really gone down in quality. I think Encanto was started during John Lasseter's regime, which is why that film was still relatively well-received but Raya, Strange World, and Wish were all products of the new team. And apparently they have a very strict rule that their female characters will not be bogged down with romance. I've always liked Aurora. I can understand why out of all the princesses, she's the one considered the most a cipher with only 19 minutes of screentime, but I do think there's a good deal of personality there on the screen if someone's willing to pay attention. In the Maleficent film, whatever Elle Fanning did left no impression whatsoever. And what's worse is that she had more screentime to actually accomplish this. And even after one film, she got a chance in the Maleficent sequel but two films still don't leave her character any impact, which is one of the reasons it's hard to take Disney seriously when they make outlandish claims that Aurora will finally be a character now. At the end of the day, it's the 1959 version who is still a household name and sells merchandise all over the world. I've always heard that Emma Watson basically was Hermione, even off the set. In fact, they more or less cast the lead trio based on how similar they were to the real life characters because Rupert Grint is also very much like Ron. Or I should say the movie version of Ron. I know book fans think the movie Ron is awful and just comic relief and I think a great deal of that was Rupert's own personality shaping the writing for the character. So I think that's why Emma succeeded with Hermione because she was basically playing herself and I feel that influenced her choices when playing Belle except Belle is not Hermione. They have similarities but they're not identical. As much as I like Emma, as an actress I do feel she's a bit lacking and I think that's also why she's more or less given up acting now. I didn't realize that the dress in Goblet of Fire was changed from blue to pink to suit Emma. I suppose that makes sense because I always assumed they thought it would look better onscreen, but I guess it'll only look better onscreen if it looks good on the person wearing it. Like you said, there's a difference between Belle's gown and Hermione's dress which was only described in a book. And apparently the costume designer for BATB wasn't super happy with Emma's direction for the yellow dress but she was more or less told she had to follow Emma's choices. I know Rachel Zegler is an activist, like Emma Watson. But Emma Watson played one of the most iconic characters of the modern age and she has the credentials to back it up, like being a UN spokesperson. Rachel Zegler is basically an unknown and most of her films haven't even done well at the box office. It's very hard to take her seriously compared to Emma. She made a statement that she hears people online saying that this Snow White remake is the PC Snow White, and she said that "yeah, because we need one." Based on that, it seems like Rachel accepted the Snow White role specifically because she feels the character is outdated and she can be part of the "solution" to fix her. I'll just say then that I don't even blame Rachel so much as Disney because Disney is the company giving her that vehicle to do this. They're the ones making a project with the intent of "fixing" Snow White. If they made it clear that this was going to be the classical take on the character and they weren't going to essentially "upgrade" the character, I doubt Rachel would have agreed to play the part. So while I don't agree with her take on Snow White at all, the fact is that Disney is the one giving her the platform here so I consider them more culpable. And this is actually something they had planned for a while. Before we got the live-action Cinderella by Kenneth Branagh, the original plan was to make a live-action Cinderella that would feature her becoming a warrior to save her kingdom. Basically a revisionist action heroine like Snow White and the Huntsman. I think when Branagh got onboard, that was scrapped for a more classical take on the fairy tale. So Cinderella was really more a fluke and I think a lot of people, including myself, assumed that was going to be the set standard for all the future live-action remakes. I think at this point, it seems unlikely we'll see Mickey and the gang in more sets outside of the occasional Mickey and Minnie in some new looks. I don't remember Donald and Daisy being that expensive from the CMF series but I also bought them a while ago so it's possible they're more pricey now. I remember Minnie was the one who was the most expensive out of Mickey, Minnie, Donald, and Daisy. As for Goofy, Lego has been really cautious about overusing him. The best recommendation I have for getting his minifigure is buying the keychain figure and removing the actual keychain since there are online tutorials for that. The head will have a hole in it but if you have one of the other Goofy minifigs they've released in cheaper sets over the years (like I have a BBQ Goofy wearing an apron from the fire station set), you can swap out that head. Keychain Goofy is not identical to the Goofy minifigure in the train station set which was Disney park themed. But the Goofy keychain actually features him in his classic outfit. I was hoping they'd release a non-keychain minifig version of him like that but they haven't in all these years. As for if they ever remake the train station set, I think that would be nice since they remade the castle. But I think the train station wasn't ever a big seller because it was so pricey and I remember even the first year it was released, it was heavily marked down for Black Friday. Since I own the original Disney castle, I was lucky that it came with Rapunzel's hair piece that features in her trunk. It's black and identical to Genie Jafar's hair. So I was able to just use that along with an extra gold stud. Agreed, I would like the Stitch spaceship eventually but it's not an immediate must. A BATB diorama set would at least get us a Beast minifig or so I'd hope. But we've been burned in the past so I'm not going to hope for anything in particular. I would like Geppetto's workshop especially if we can get Figaro and maybe even a Blue Fairy minifig. The same way the Peter Pan diorama set reused Peter and Tink but gave us Wendy as a new minifig. But based on the price for this unannounced set being only $65, I can't see how they could incorporate Geppetto's workshop in that price. Unless it's just a microscale facade like the Peter Pan diorama, showing Geppetto's workshop and Pinocchio's whole village.
JeanGreyForever Posted September 26, 2024 Posted September 26, 2024 There's a new Halloween GWP starting October 1st featuring a light-up pumpkin for anything over $120. Would make a good match for The Nightmare Before Christmas set as the pumpkin king can have his own pumpkin.
Virdenemt Posted September 28, 2024 Posted September 28, 2024 On 9/26/2024 at 1:13 PM, JeanGreyForever said: There's a new Halloween GWP starting October 1st featuring a light-up pumpkin for anything over $120. Would make a good match for The Nightmare Before Christmas set as the pumpkin king can have his own pumpkin. Is this for any purchase over 120 or only halloween products?
JeanGreyForever Posted September 29, 2024 Posted September 29, 2024 18 minutes ago, Virdenemt said: Is this for any purchase over 120 or only halloween products? It's for all products, not just Halloween ones. I just mentioned it in conjunction with The Nightmare Before Christmas set because I thought they'd match well. https://en.hothbricks.com/prochainement-sur-le-shop-le-set-lego-creator-40697-light-up-jack-o-lantern-sera-offert-des-120-e-dachat/
TheFriedChimken Posted September 30, 2024 Posted September 30, 2024 On 9/24/2024 at 8:51 AM, JeanGreyForever said: There was an article I read about how Disney's management has really changed, especially in the animation sector. After the John Lasseter #MeToo scandal, Disney pushed to replace all the old guard of animation with a younger, more diverse group of people. However, these artists don't have the same qualifications or schooling as the old guard of animators did. Most of them are Tumblr/Deviantart artists and this is why the storytelling for the latest films, particularly starting with Raya, has really gone down in quality. I think Encanto was started during John Lasseter's regime, which is why that film was still relatively well-received but Raya, Strange World, and Wish were all products of the new team. And apparently they have a very strict rule that their female characters will not be bogged down with romance. I've always liked Aurora. I can understand why out of all the princesses, she's the one considered the most a cipher with only 19 minutes of screentime, but I do think there's a good deal of personality there on the screen if someone's willing to pay attention. In the Maleficent film, whatever Elle Fanning did left no impression whatsoever. And what's worse is that she had more screentime to actually accomplish this. And even after one film, she got a chance in the Maleficent sequel but two films still don't leave her character any impact, which is one of the reasons it's hard to take Disney seriously when they make outlandish claims that Aurora will finally be a character now. At the end of the day, it's the 1959 version who is still a household name and sells merchandise all over the world. I've always heard that Emma Watson basically was Hermione, even off the set. In fact, they more or less cast the lead trio based on how similar they were to the real life characters because Rupert Grint is also very much like Ron. Or I should say the movie version of Ron. I know book fans think the movie Ron is awful and just comic relief and I think a great deal of that was Rupert's own personality shaping the writing for the character. So I think that's why Emma succeeded with Hermione because she was basically playing herself and I feel that influenced her choices when playing Belle except Belle is not Hermione. They have similarities but they're not identical. As much as I like Emma, as an actress I do feel she's a bit lacking and I think that's also why she's more or less given up acting now. I didn't realize that the dress in Goblet of Fire was changed from blue to pink to suit Emma. I suppose that makes sense because I always assumed they thought it would look better onscreen, but I guess it'll only look better onscreen if it looks good on the person wearing it. Like you said, there's a difference between Belle's gown and Hermione's dress which was only described in a book. And apparently the costume designer for BATB wasn't super happy with Emma's direction for the yellow dress but she was more or less told she had to follow Emma's choices. I know Rachel Zegler is an activist, like Emma Watson. But Emma Watson played one of the most iconic characters of the modern age and she has the credentials to back it up, like being a UN spokesperson. Rachel Zegler is basically an unknown and most of her films haven't even done well at the box office. It's very hard to take her seriously compared to Emma. She made a statement that she hears people online saying that this Snow White remake is the PC Snow White, and she said that "yeah, because we need one." Based on that, it seems like Rachel accepted the Snow White role specifically because she feels the character is outdated and she can be part of the "solution" to fix her. I'll just say then that I don't even blame Rachel so much as Disney because Disney is the company giving her that vehicle to do this. They're the ones making a project with the intent of "fixing" Snow White. If they made it clear that this was going to be the classical take on the character and they weren't going to essentially "upgrade" the character, I doubt Rachel would have agreed to play the part. So while I don't agree with her take on Snow White at all, the fact is that Disney is the one giving her the platform here so I consider them more culpable. And this is actually something they had planned for a while. Before we got the live-action Cinderella by Kenneth Branagh, the original plan was to make a live-action Cinderella that would feature her becoming a warrior to save her kingdom. Basically a revisionist action heroine like Snow White and the Huntsman. I think when Branagh got onboard, that was scrapped for a more classical take on the fairy tale. So Cinderella was really more a fluke and I think a lot of people, including myself, assumed that was going to be the set standard for all the future live-action remakes. I think at this point, it seems unlikely we'll see Mickey and the gang in more sets outside of the occasional Mickey and Minnie in some new looks. I don't remember Donald and Daisy being that expensive from the CMF series but I also bought them a while ago so it's possible they're more pricey now. I remember Minnie was the one who was the most expensive out of Mickey, Minnie, Donald, and Daisy. As for Goofy, Lego has been really cautious about overusing him. The best recommendation I have for getting his minifigure is buying the keychain figure and removing the actual keychain since there are online tutorials for that. The head will have a hole in it but if you have one of the other Goofy minifigs they've released in cheaper sets over the years (like I have a BBQ Goofy wearing an apron from the fire station set), you can swap out that head. Keychain Goofy is not identical to the Goofy minifigure in the train station set which was Disney park themed. But the Goofy keychain actually features him in his classic outfit. I was hoping they'd release a non-keychain minifig version of him like that but they haven't in all these years. As for if they ever remake the train station set, I think that would be nice since they remade the castle. But I think the train station wasn't ever a big seller because it was so pricey and I remember even the first year it was released, it was heavily marked down for Black Friday. Since I own the original Disney castle, I was lucky that it came with Rapunzel's hair piece that features in her trunk. It's black and identical to Genie Jafar's hair. So I was able to just use that along with an extra gold stud. Agreed, I would like the Stitch spaceship eventually but it's not an immediate must. A BATB diorama set would at least get us a Beast minifig or so I'd hope. But we've been burned in the past so I'm not going to hope for anything in particular. I would like Geppetto's workshop especially if we can get Figaro and maybe even a Blue Fairy minifig. The same way the Peter Pan diorama set reused Peter and Tink but gave us Wendy as a new minifig. But based on the price for this unannounced set being only $65, I can't see how they could incorporate Geppetto's workshop in that price. Unless it's just a microscale facade like the Peter Pan diorama, showing Geppetto's workshop and Pinocchio's whole village. Sorry for my overdue reply. Been caught up with life stuff. I remember hearing about the commotion regarding Lasseter but didn't realise if had so many internal implications. In addition to the new team and artists, I wonder how much of the strictness and extreme care put into avoiding any relationship/romance stuff has to do with what he did now that you've mentioned it. I don't know really know what people expected with the classic Aurora. Like you said, if you actually pay attention to who she and the story she does have heart and character. She has always been a good character in my opinion, and its definitely ironic that her live action counterpart had more time but had little development. Honestly I found Fanning's Aurora even weaker and straying further from the character in Maleficient 2 with her lack of compassion and voice of reason being completely absent. For me she came across as a bit arrogant - so much for an "improvement". I do feel that everything that Emma does comes from a good place - I truly. It's just a case of my sense of creativity and ideas of meaningful character/story development differing from how she chooses to execute her own visions. I do think though, respectfully to Emma, she should be a little more lenient with accepting the craft of others. Considering her value for being vocal and speaking out, you'd think she's apply that to experts and talent individuals in the film industry. I agree that Zegler is not someone with the same standing to make the remarks and choices she does, nor do I think they should be made at all. I agree that Disney is responsibile in many ways for allowing her to go about things so horribly, but honestly I don't understand how any individual wouldn't feel embarrassment of shame for intentionally upsetting people. I get that some people do take on such a reputation to boost their fame, but I don't know if this is or isn't the case for Zegler. For whatever her reasoning is, Disney has fueled her perception with their established direction with the live-action films - probably to get more clicks and attention for the film. I will give the key chain a go if I can't find an affordable Goofy - I don't mind if he doesn't perfectly match the one in the train set, having the classic fit is enough to make me happy. Dang I honestly didn't know how well the original train set sold, but if it didn't do so well I guess I'm better off making a MOC if I can learn to do so at that sort of a scale. I didn't realise the castle hair was Rapunzel's - I honestly thought if was Mulan but was never sure because although she too cuts her hair, it's maybe a bit more sensical to be Rapunzel considering she is a character known for her hair lol. Yeah I'm kinda slowly moving away from Lego Disney. I'll still going to look out for stuff and buy stuff that I'm keen for, but my excitement for it has started to dip as Lego has kinda ditched designs that had me so intrigued and made certain shortcuts. While I'd like to hope the upcoming set could be one of those amazing ideas you've described, I'm just going to hope that whatever it is will at least get me back into the property.
BrickBob Studpants Posted September 30, 2024 Posted September 30, 2024 Pictures of two of the Moana 2 sets are out! Since one of them is a lifestyle image, the full reveal must be imminent The buildable Hei-Hei is nowhere to be seen though.
OttoRiver Posted September 30, 2024 Posted September 30, 2024 Kind of shocked no Maui in the sets. You'd think he would be a selling point. Also really like the foldable island set. Reminds me of old Polly pocket sets. Any thoughts they replace the storybook sets with this type of closable playsets?
Chicken Little Posted October 1, 2024 Posted October 1, 2024 The sets were definitely fast tracked (the images are still prototypes), so maybe they didn't have the time/budget for a new maui. Maybe for next year, I think Moana is the one princess alongside ariel, frozen and cinderella that always have sets on shelves.
Recommended Posts