Disney Princess 2014 Rumors & Discussion

[Oky]

Um, they wouldnt have had time yet, ......

It's been five months since that movie came out. It's even been out on DVD for over a month. If they had the license, they would have had plenty of time to produce some sets to release in the summer wave. They didn't get the license when the movie was released for some reason and now it wouldn't be as profitable anymore to get it, so I think they're just waiting until they can release the sets under the Disney Princess license so that they don't have to buy another license to do so. It makes sense from a business point of view, especially if they can release them during the winter wave (you know, because of the season and all).

[Dorayaki]

I don't think there's any doubt at this point that Frozen is a hit. Don't you think TLG would have capitalized on that by now if there wasn't some kind of licensing issue? The license that TLG currently holds is for the Disney Princess brand, so I'm pretty sure they are limited to the eleven princesses that are currently within that brand (along with their respective princes and animal companions). So until Anna and Elsa join the lineup I don't think they can release sets based on Frozen within this theme.

I don't really think just making these characters in "DP" line would change the chances if they could be in Lego sets. As both of us mentioned, other older princess's haven't even come yet, and obviously there are issues for Frozen which didn't let TLC make any set during theater time. Now the upcoming Maleficent is a similar problem sicne it also counts part of the princess stories, though not an animation sequel.

And I'm not sure about how the license pay works. More stories do cost more, but Disney Princess isn't really something like "bargain sale" or "combination price". Maybe there's some reasons why TLC isn't active in making more princess's coming, or perhaps all licenses of unused princess stories have to be seperately confirmed in furthur waves.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Dorayaki

[Sarah]

Perhaps the choice of movie titles to be released as sets was decided before Frozen hit the cinemas or even if it was only in post-production or even while still in production ?

They were. Frozen came out at Thanksgiving and we were hearing about Disney Princess set (and may have even known WHICH princess sets) before that.

[8BrickMario]

What do you think were the biggest missed opportunities in the sets they made? I think Rapunzel's tower really needed Mother Gothel, even though the theme is centered on romance, not villains. And that LEGO can't be bothered to give the females new face prints.

[Fritzy]

I was very surprised to learn that Ariel's Amazing Treasures didn't include a dinglehopper (fork). How do you overlook such a key item? I also feel there was room to include Sebastian -- it would have made for great value.

[Faefrost]

Lego is operating off of the Disney Princesses license for this line. That means 11 very very specific characters and some of their non villainous supporting cast. Villains are a separate license. Tinkerbell and the Faeries is a separate license. And Frozen is currently a separate license. Elsa and Anna have not been added to the official Disney Princess list yet, although you can be sure it will happen. They only just added the characters to the theme parks (resulting in 4-5 hour lines for pictures) in April. Neither Disney nor Lego were quite prepared for the juggernaut that Frozen has become. TLG was probably expecting movie earnings similar to Tangled, which justified a set or two under the Princess line, but would not warrant a full theme all it's own.

[Dorayaki]

What do you think were the biggest missed opportunities in the sets they made? I think Rapunzel's tower really needed Mother Gothel, even though the theme is centered on romance, not villains. And that LEGO can't be bothered to give the females new face prints.

That's indeed an disappoint to me. I don't feel very bothered to see her here. Tehcnically it's not difficult to make her (in long dark dress, with Andrea's hair in black).

That means 11 very very specific characters and some of their non villainous supporting cast. Villains are a separate license. Tinkerbell and the Faeries is a separate license. And Frozen is currently a separate license. Elsa and Anna have not been added to the official Disney Princess list yet, although you can be sure it will happen. They only just added the characters to the theme parks (resulting in 4-5 hour lines for pictures) in April. Neither Disney nor Lego were quite prepared for the juggernaut that Frozen has become. TLG was probably expecting movie earnings similar to Tangled, which justified a set or two under the Princess line, but would not warrant a full theme all it's own.

Lacking villains would be difficult for storytelling, which is the major conflict with other Lego licenses. Supporting characters are okay, but in this wave of sets none supporting characters are added so far.

A full theme does give a story more sets, but unlike Superheroes, Disney Princesses only include fewer stories so maybe it doesn't create too many problems. But again, no news for the license is the current issue. I do believe a new film in theater time deserves a full theme, if TLG didn't make it too late .

For other non-princess Disney classics or new films, it just depends on whether TLC is interested in them. Tinkerbell is a nice theme to compete COBI's Winx. However, there could be a conflict if TLG also want to make Peter Pan (or Jake the Pirate in minifigure scale). It might result in having PP and TB in the same size.

[Faefrost]

That's indeed an disappoint to me. I don't feel very bothered to see her here. Tehcnically it's not difficult to make her (in long dark dress, with Andrea's hair in black).

Lacking villains would be difficult for storytelling, which is the major conflict with other Lego licenses. Supporting characters are okay, but in this wave of sets none supporting characters are added so far.

A full theme does give a story more sets, but unlike Superheroes, Disney Princesses only include fewer stories so maybe it doesn't create too many problems. But again, no news for the license is the current issue. I do believe a new film in theater time deserves a full theme, if TLG didn't make it too late .

For other non-princess Disney classics or new films, it just depends on whether TLC is interested in them. Tinkerbell is a nice theme to compete COBI's Winx. However, there could be a conflict if TLG also want to make Peter Pan (or Jake the Pirate in minifigure scale). It might result in having PP and TB in the same size.

Disney can be strange with the licensing. The same character can appear in multiple licenses. But each license has very very strict rules. The Disney Princess line is more or less a romance IP and not an action or conflict based one. Typically it is the designated Princesses, their Prince if and where appropriate, and accessories animal companions and such. It's meant to be the "happily ever after" part of the story if you will. The conflict or action or full story part of the IP is covered in the individual movie licenses. And then there can be strange other combinations, such as Disney Villains, or Disney Infinity. The licenses get complicated, and Disney spells out every specific detail of what is allowed. Packaging, presentation etc. Lego went with Disney Princesses over specific movies in part because it is both an extremely popular one, and it allows for a great breadth of desired protagonists.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Faefrost

[8BrickMario]

This is why I've never understood the making of the Princesses into a separate franchise. I'm assuming the little girls it's directed at would have no problem playing "happily ever after" but for someone like me, it's boring when only the prince and princess are the characters you get. Unfortunate that the license focuses only on the princesses, since it gives the LEGO sets less to do.

Edited May 11, 2014 by 8BrickMario

[Dorayaki]

Disney can be strange with the licensing. The same character can appear in multiple licenses. But each license has very very strict rules. The Disney Princess line is more or less a romance IP and not an action or conflict based one. Typically it is the designated Princesses, their Prince if and where appropriate, and accessories animal companions and such. It's meant to be the "happily ever after" part of the story if you will. The conflict or action or full story part of the IP is covered in the individual movie licenses. And then there can be strange other combinations, such as Disney Villains, or Disney Infinity. The licenses get complicated, and Disney spells out every specific detail of what is allowed. Packaging, presentation etc. Lego went with Disney Princesses over specific movies in part because it is both an extremely popular one, and it allows for a great breadth of desired protagonists.

I believe that Disney Princess is a concept that doesn't fit in LEGO licenses. Mattel dolls, for instance, simply have one character doll in a package. This kind of toy has fewer things to do with storytelling or violence, and put more focus on individual characters. On the other hand, LEGO licenses focus on interactions between different kinds of characters(minifigs) and use these to compose scenarios.

If TLG only want to make protagonist minifigures, the only better excuse for this is a crossover like Sofia the First, which I'm willing to see happen. However some subcharacters of Sofia itself might still be necessary.

I don't refuse to see sets based on "happily ever after" scenarios, they're still the important part of princess's stories. However, as mentioned, Rapunzel's Tower has obscure conflicts with the lack of necessary villain (and actually it's not an "ever after" scenario). If there are good amount of sets, some of them can be based on iconic combats and the rest are romantic scenes, which is okay to me.

Edited May 13, 2014 by Dorayaki

[8BrickMario]

Exactly. Rapunzel's tower was actually a decorated prison, and the only relevance it has to the theme is being the iconic feature of Tangled. The Disney Princess theme is a misguided result of LEGO trying to market solely to girls (and not all girls are all about the romance ascpect) on one theme, instead of potentially acquiring a more generalized license that would be more interesting.

Edited May 16, 2014 by 8BrickMario

[Sarah]

Does the boat in Ariel's Magic Kiss really float on water?

[Clone OPatra]

Does the boat in Ariel's Magic Kiss really float on water?

No, it's the standard non-floaty LEGO rowboat.

[Darth Punk]

Nice to see that there are those who know more about marketing princesses than Disney. Obviously TLG is making a huge mistake having a line without conflict. Just look at the friends line, no villains and it's an utter disaster. They should surely generalize it so it's more in line with city sets.

Rapunzel really needs some fire flick missiles. Girls are all about conflict, which is which evil Barbie with her death rays are flying off the shelves. Girls are burning their doll houses and demanding army bunkers instead. Riots are breaking out in the pink aisles as we speak.

Clearly TLG's billion dollar is about to collapse under the weight of these six sets. Their other 34 lines available online is not providing enough choices. Marketing to girls is obviously the problem and needs to stop. Please call TLG now before it's too late!

[8BrickMario]

No need for sarcasm. Many people, including the some of the girls LEGO's marketing to, think it's a little sexist and unrealistic.

[Lordofdragonss]

Nice to see that there are those who know more about marketing princesses than Disney. Obviously TLG is making a huge mistake having a line without conflict. Just look at the friends line, no villains and it's an utter disaster. They should surely generalize it so it's more in line with city sets.

Rapunzel really needs some fire flick missiles. Girls are all about conflict, which is which evil Barbie with her death rays are flying off the shelves. Girls are burning their doll houses and demanding army bunkers instead. Riots are breaking out in the pink aisles as we speak.

Clearly TLG's billion dollar is about to collapse under the weight of these six sets. Their other 34 lines available online is not providing enough choices. Marketing to girls is obviously the problem and needs to stop. Please call TLG now before it's too late!

As much I see you are trolling, I agree.

Friends line would be better with antagonist- a bunch of naughty high-class spoiled girls that try to destroy Friends plans or siple fight for boys.

Very cliche yet fitting and iteresting for girls.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Lordofdragonss

[Dorayaki]

Nice to see that there are those who know more about marketing princesses than Disney. Obviously TLG is making a huge mistake having a line without conflict. Just look at the friends line, no villains and it's an utter disaster.

As much I see you aretrolling, I agree.

Friends line would be better with antagonist- a bunch of naughty high-class spoiled girls that try to destroy Friends plans or siple fight for boys. Very cliche yet fitting and oterestimg for girls.

Fighting for boy

Well if you guys don't mind, I recommend you to take a look at Friends animation advertisings first and comment there. It's offtopic so make it short here, as long as major LEGO products don't target at teenagers (13yo and above), the "mean girl party" could mislead underages and make negative marketing effects. The criminals and monsters from other LEGO themes have simpler concepts, and they do physically affect the product designs (weapons, etc).

I'd say that I was dissapointed to not see Friends harassed by SWAT in TLM, but the theme doesn't need literal bad guys in general.

Meanwhile, Disney stories and some other LEGO licenses are mostly theatrical. They need some fighting enemies for dramatic visual effects, and these characters are more similar with criminals and monsters, rather than "mean people". Ignoring those details can be ragarded as a disrespect to the story and its fans. Plus, TLG had introduced bad witches in earlier themes, I guess the licensed bad witches wouldn't create any issue.

Edited June 11, 2014 by Dorayaki

[Hythonia]

What do you think were the biggest missed opportunities in the sets they made? I think Rapunzel's tower really needed Mother Gothel, even though the theme is centered on romance, not villains. And that LEGO can't be bothered to give the females new face prints.

I think not using any of the villains was a big mistake. I mean, at least include Flotsam and Jetsam in the Ariel Boat set. If I never get an Ursula minifig, I will go to my grave screaming like a banshee. It's as if LEGO thinks little girls (or boys) don't want to cause any conflict with their LEGO sets, just watching Cinderella and Prince Charming live happily ever after. Blah, gimme a break.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Hythonia

[skelliesgang]

Any 2015 set rumors? At this point, Frozen sets are a given.

[8BrickMario]

It would sell, but sadly, I'm guessing they aren't realizing the potential of the theme, and it's another one-off single-wave Disney theme. I hope not!

[CptPJs]

Disappointing, but mostly what I wanted from it was Ariel, so I guess I should be happy. If it doesn't continue do you think we'll get a different licenced girl theme?

[CM4Sci]

It's not System, but we are getting two Sofia the First DUPLO sets next year. Just thought it was relevant.

-Sci

[TomKraut]

I was pretty sure we won't get any more Disney Princess sets, but then I checked the Disney Online Store to figure out what else is part of the Princess license.

We had sets with Arielle, Cinderella, Rapunzel and Merida.

I would love a Snow White set, but as the license doesn't include the dwarves, that would be pretty pointless. The same goes for Jasmin without Aladdin and the Genie. Elsa and Anna aren't official Disney Princesses yet, so that leaves Belle, Aurora, Tiana, Pocahontas and Mulan.

As the Beast seems to be part of the license, a Belle set could be done (perhaps the ballroom scene). For Aurora we could get another castle and I'm sure the other three could be placed in small sets with some accessories.

However, I still don't think there won't be any more sets. The license seriously lacks the supporting characters, especially the various animal companions and adversaries. This diminishes the play value of the sets, making it a bad fit for Lego.

On the plus side, if the line doesn't sell well, I might be able to pick up some Cinderella Castles next year at a serious discount to build the perfect Fairy Tale Castle MOC

I really wish Lego would pick up the Frozen license and create a whole wave of Frozen sets, with all the characters. If you haven't done so yet, I would suggest supporting "Elsa's Ice Palace" over at Lego Ideas. Even if it doesn't pass the review process, it will show Lego that there are people interested in the subject.

Cheers

TomKraut

Edited August 27, 2014 by TomKraut

[Dorayaki]

We had sets with Arielle, Cinderella, Rapunzel and Merida. I would love a Snow White set, but as the license doesn't include the dwarves, that would be pretty pointless. The same goes for Jasmin without Aladdin and the Genie. Elsa and Anna aren't official Disney Princesses yet, so that leaves Belle, Aurora, Tiana, Pocahontas and Mulan.

However, I still don't think there won't be any more sets. The license seriously lacks the supporting characters, especially the various animal companions and adversaries. This diminishes the play value of the sets, making it a bad fit for Lego.

Yeah, pretty true. Excluding other non-girls-oriented Disney classics, it's pretty wasteful and unfair that only four princess's appear. Many other stories could face different kinds of problem (= new mold needs):

Snow White: Dwarves' cottage is the most symbolic building, however it also needs seven dwarves, which means its cost would be as much as that one from Hobbits. It's not impossible, but would TLC treat this theme as much as Hobbits?

Mulan: new Chinese armor molds, and the question is whether girls would be interested in Ancient Chinese army if TLC still want to impress little girls instead of historical FOL.

Beauty & Beast: Of couse, that Beast needs a whole new mold, same for those furnitures.

Pocahontas: suppose that it can just reuse some parts from Lone Ranger and old Western sets, it's actually not a difficult case.

The common prorblem for Frog Tiana and other Disney films is: most of them have iconic animal mascots and they mostly need new molds. To decrease the marginal production costs, each stories should have more than one set, but obviously TLG is not doing this right now. I guess Merida's brother cubs could be repainted into new dolls in the future, while the lizard of Rapaunzel is generically used in Friends sets. Cinderella's pets are the worst cases.

I think Frozen deserves an independent line, but unfortunately many of the Disney films this year didn't get LEGO sets at all.

Edited August 28, 2014 by Dorayaki

[ghostmind]

41060 - Aurora's Bedroom

41061 - Jasmine's Exotic Adventure

41062 - Elsa's Glittering Ice Palace

41063 - Ariel's Underwater Castle

Edited August 28, 2014 by ghostmind