3rd headless Nick allready
I do like this fluffy but I don't need another tower
Will get 76445

These are good sets. I think that is definitely Fawkes on his Burning Day. The thestrals will be great for my Halloween display. The large tower looks nice and big. I lke to see regular and inflated Marge. Hope the prices aren't inflated.

So many repeats.

Not the biggest HP fan, but I really like this book nook! At first glance wasn't even aware it was supposed to be a book nook or book ends at all, but think this one works perfect regardless how you display it. As much as I liked the idea of that Sherlock Holmes book nook, this one has the much beter execution. So pretty sure I'm gonna get this one....

And that monster book....as a static model it would have been just okay, but using a pullback motor for it is just brilliant!

That tower set shouldbhave been two separate sets.
Really bad move. No kid will be able to get it
I also depise the No floor spaces in sets.

I don't think that Fluffy's bite is gonna hurt anybody...
Its eyes look rather cartoonish, but so do those from the one in 76387. However, that one has different facial expressions on every head, while this new one looks a bit monotonous.
Also, only one colour for the whole body seems cheap.

Fluffy from 4706 is still my favourite, the head shape looks great, the only thing I'd like to see are printed eyes & noses.

76450 looks good, might consider gifting that to a fan!

In general, I like that a lot of recent sets are foldable, which allows for a nice display and good play access at the same time.

The herbology class looks like a book nook and I'm glad you can do a folded version as well as a split. I'm not as impressed with it as the Sherlock Holmes one, but it's a train so I'm sold on that.

It's unbelievable, how few sets were there with the Dursleys. 2 a long time ago, and only 1 recently. And no Dudley Vs Dementor yet.

The Privet Drive set is really cool! It's great to have a Large Marge, and it's interesting to see that Dudley got his own bedroom.

Two complete buildings with the Botanical Garden and Privet Drive? Sold on those two for my City.

Marge fig looks hilarious

I think only 76445 and 76454 are must-buys from this list, maybe 76451. Love the red skirt used as a flower in the greenhouse.

Is Nearly Headless Nick the X-Wing of the Harry Potter ghosts? This is, what, third or fourth version, and still no Bloody Baron? And, hey, look at that, I need to pick up a Fat Friar sometime…

@RoundhouseBrick said:
"I don't think that Fluffy's bite is gonna hurt anybody...
Its eyes look rather cartoonish, but so do those from the one in 76387. However, that one has different facial expressions on every head, while this new one looks a bit monotonous.
"

Tbh in 76387, people complained about having multiple expressions, including one half awake half asleep, so not sure they can win there!

I love this theme. They did some great renditions of sets this time around, but nothing too different enough that I need to get too many of them. I'll likely get the Book of Monsters since I was going to build my own version, but now I don't have to worry about it.

The book ends/book nook thing is neat. The smaller train works for what they are going for. But $100...I'll have to think about it.

@shea42 said:
"Remaking 30628 already?"

UCS version, apparently!

I never thought that we'd get Professor Kettleburn before a new Peeves. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!

now here’s a book nook that actually functions well as a book nook! the sherlock holmes set looks even worse by comparison now

I don't think the LEGO designers quite get the point of a book nook, no offense. The Sherlock Holmes one only shows the front facade of Holmes & Watson's Baker Street apartment, ignoring the more interesting interior and this Harry Potter one folds the Hogwarts Express in half. Book of them look good when open, but not closed. Also, the price is pretty steep ($100 for HP and $130 for the Sherlock Holmes) when I've nought wood book nook sets that were less than 1/3 that price.

As for the other sets, I'm glad to finally set a set depicting Aunt Marge's visit, but it's missing Dobby who caused the inflatable shenanigans. And they could've came up with a better set name than "Hogwarts Castle: The Main Tower."

@M_blockhead_357 said:
"I don't think the LEGO designers quite get the point of a book nook, no offense. The Sherlock Holmes one only shows the front facade of Holmes & Watson's Baker Street apartment, ignoring the more interesting interior and this Harry Potter one folds the Hogwarts Express in half. Book of them look good when open, but not closed. Also, the price is pretty steep ($100 for HP and $130 for the Sherlock Holmes) when I've nought wood book nook sets that were less than 1/3 that price.

As for the other sets, I'm glad to finally set a set depicting Aunt Marge's visit, but it's missing Dobby who caused the inflatable shenanigans. And they could've came up with a better set name than "Hogwarts Castle: The Main Tower.""

I don't remember Dobby being in Prisoner of Azkaban - either book or movie. If I recall correctly, Harry caused it without meaning to, much like the disappearing glass at the Zoo in Philosopher's / Sorcerer's stone. You're probably confusing Chamber of Secrets with PoA, as CoS does feature Dobby making Harry's life miserable.

@Norikins said:
"I never thought that we'd get Professor Kettleburn before a new Peeves. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!"

The problem is that Peeves isn't in the movies, and they are trying to stick to the movies because of, ahem, problems.

@Murdoch17:
Right, HP1 is a bqtallion of owls, and eventually Hagrid, trying to deliver Harry’s invitation. HP2 is Dobbie trying to scare him away, and dropping a cake on the wife of Vernon’s boss (with Harry taking the blame). HP2 is Aunt Marge insulting Harry’s parents and such, to the point that he lets slip a little of his own magic on her.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @Norikins said:
"I never thought that we'd get Professor Kettleburn before a new Peeves. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!"

The problem is that Peeves isn't in the movies, and they are trying to stick to the movies because of, ahem, problems. "

They are trying to stick to the movies because of, ahem, that’s all their license with the production studio covers at the moment. They might get access to the TV series, since it’s all under rhe WB umbrella, but the studio can’t sell them rights they don’t already own. The Middle Earth license only covers the LotR film trilogy, the Hobbit film trilogy, and possibly LotR:WotR, but definitely not Rings of Power because they have a contract with WB, not Amazon, and not the company that owns all the film rights and is just leasing them to WB/Amazon.

Now, they absolutely could license the books directly from Rowling, but they’ve already paid a boatload of money to get rights that cover most of the content people are familiar with, so why pay a second boatload of money to get not a second boatload of rights? Besides, the Sherlock Holmes book book is the only instance I can think of where they licensed IP in book form. Other books (Hans Christian Anderson, or Charles Dickens) have been in the public domain, or (Winnie the Pooh, Peter Pan) they’ve licensed the film adaptation instead of the original books.

These look excellent. I wasn't expecting to buy any more Harry Potter this year but 76445, 76450 and 76451 are so good I just might have to!

@PurpleDave said:
" @Murdoch17:
Right, HP1 is a bqtallion of owls, and eventually Hagrid, trying to deliver Harry’s invitation. HP2 is Dobbie trying to scare him away, and dropping a cake on the wife of Vernon’s boss (with Harry taking the blame). HP2 is Aunt Marge insulting Harry’s parents and such, to the point that he lets slip a little of his own magic on her.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @Norikins said:
"I never thought that we'd get Professor Kettleburn before a new Peeves. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!"

The problem is that Peeves isn't in the movies, and they are trying to stick to the movies because of, ahem, problems. "

They are trying to stick to the movies because of, ahem, that’s all their license with the production studio covers at the moment. They might get access to the TV series, since it’s all under rhe WB umbrella, but the studio can’t sell them rights they don’t already own. The Middle Earth license only covers the LotR film trilogy, the Hobbit film trilogy, and possibly LotR:WotR, but definitely not Rings of Power because they have a contract with WB, not Amazon, and not the company that owns all the film rights and is just leasing them to WB/Amazon.

Now, they absolutely could license the books directly from Rowling, but they’ve already paid a boatload of money to get rights that cover most of the content people are familiar with, so why pay a second boatload of money to get not a second boatload of rights? Besides, the Sherlock Holmes book book is the only instance I can think of where they licensed IP in book form. Other books (Hans Christian Anderson, or Charles Dickens) have been in the public domain, or (Winnie the Pooh, Peter Pan) they’ve licensed the film adaptation instead of the original books."

I think Holmes is also in the public domain. I could be wrong, though.

I don’t think the book nook looks good at all. Wanting to do both, a book nook and bookends, made it impossible to do a good book nook. The configuration doesn’t make sense with the train being folded. I also think looking at the wagon from the front, it doesn’t look good. On top of that, with the double quotes and other stuff, I think it’s too busy.

@Murdoch17 said:
"I think Holmes is also in the public domain. I could be wrong, though."

In the comments on the Holmes set, it was mentioned that a few of the original novels have entered public domain, but many have not. That’s where things get really tricky. With characters like Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse having already reached that point, and Superman/Batman/Wonder Woman rapidly approaching that point themselves, I’ve been reading articles about how complex the situation can get. When Steamboat Willie hit that point, the public got access not to Mickey Mouse, but to that very specific depiction of the character. Until Fantasia reaches that point, you can’t use Sorcerer’s Apprentice Mickey, and you can’t even give him his standard outfit in full color, or knees and elbows, until those changes also hit the public domain.

Winnie the Pooh? Can’t show him in a red shirt, because that’s Disney’s alteration under license, and that won’t hit public domain until 2061. In the UK, the character is still under original copyright until 2027, so you can’t use any version there.

With Holmes, if you have him play the violin, that’s an established part of his character, but if it stems from a work that is still under copyright, in any market where this set will be sold, you’re going to need to license the IP or stuff the violin in a locked drawer and never mention it. However, it appears that all ADC Sherlock Holmes copyrights expired in the UK, Canada, and Australia in 1980, restored in the UK in 1996, expired in the EU and again in the UK in 2000, and in the US the final story entered public domain in 2023. So I’m not sure exactly what market copyright still exists in, as far as the original body of work goes. But again, any licensed derivations may still be under copyright, so any characterization that can be demonstrated to have originated with one of those would be off limits unless you license the IP. For characters with a long publication history, it may simply prove safer to license up front rather than worry about one minor facial tick setting off an expensive lawsuit. And maybe the rights will come cheaper, with the “owner” being fully aware that they haven’t many teeth left, and that careful avoidance of certain depictions is all someone needs to do to cut them out of the equation entirely.

@Kalking said:

100% agreed. The idea of putting further money in her pockets and credit in her Harry-Potter-linked influence and power only for her to use it to harm one of the smallest minorities in the country means I won’t ever buy an HP set even if I would otherwise love it. She’s got so much worse over the years and has directly funded attacks on rights - I don’t think there’s a product in the world that would be worth helping her do that, not to me.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Murdoch17 :
Right, HP1 is a bqtallion of owls, and eventually Hagrid, trying to deliver Harry’s invitation. HP2 is Dobbie trying to scare him away, and dropping a cake on the wife of Vernon’s boss (with Harry taking the blame). HP2 is Aunt Marge insulting Harry’s parents and such, to the point that he lets slip a little of his own magic on her.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @Norikins said:
"I never thought that we'd get Professor Kettleburn before a new Peeves. It's a conspiracy, I tell you!"

The problem is that Peeves isn't in the movies, and they are trying to stick to the movies because of, ahem, problems. "

They are trying to stick to the movies because of, ahem, that’s all their license with the production studio covers at the moment. They might get access to the TV series, since it’s all under rhe WB umbrella, but the studio can’t sell them rights they don’t already own. The Middle Earth license only covers the LotR film trilogy, the Hobbit film trilogy, and possibly LotR:WotR, but definitely not Rings of Power because they have a contract with WB, not Amazon, and not the company that owns all the film rights and is just leasing them to WB/Amazon.

Now, they absolutely could license the books directly from Rowling, but they’ve already paid a boatload of money to get rights that cover most of the content people are familiar with, so why pay a second boatload of money to get not a second boatload of rights? Besides, the Sherlock Holmes book book is the only instance I can think of where they licensed IP in book form. Other books (Hans Christian Anderson, or Charles Dickens) have been in the public domain, or (Winnie the Pooh, Peter Pan) they’ve licensed the film adaptation instead of the original books."

Well, you're technically correct (per usual), whilst I was merely being flippant.

Nevertheless, both of pur points merely beg the question. How was it that Lego made two sets with a character that doesn't appear in the films?

If I remember correctly, there were reports that Peeves had been cast, and scenes shot, but then discarded in post. Perhaps that is enough to satisfy the IP requirement. Then again, the fact that he actually never appeared may prevent Lego from revisiting the character.

These new characters are so amazing! I've been waiting for Ernie Macmillan, but Lisa Turpin is completely unexpected. Kettleburn is cool, and we've finally got all of the members of the Gryffindor quidditch team! We've got a Percy in school uniform (not from a lego book) now which is also good. Unfortunately, they come in expensive sets I don't have the budget to buy. Oh well!

@StyleCounselor:
Peeves had absolutely been cast. There's enough evidence out there to prove that. The minifig appeared in 4705 and 4709, both of which released on 9-1-01. The film premiered on 11-4-01, so that's just over two months between the time sets hit shelves and the first audience learned that Peeves was absent from the final cut. Add to that the development time for those sets, and there's a pretty large window from the time the sets were finalized, approved, and sent to production, and the time when the film was finalized and sent to print. There's a process in place to get merchandise approved during the film production process. There's almost certainly not a process in place to rescind that approval when a change to the film renders one of those designs inaccurate. So, the two Peeves sets make it to market, but the character is excised from any future set designs once it's clear that he isn't going to be in the first film. Once production starts on the second film, and they haven't even put the character on the cast list, it becomes clear that Peeves is likely out for the entire run. If they start making sets based on the upcoming TV series, Peeves might reappear, since even a premium cable season has more room to expand the story than a single feature film.

@PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor :
Peeves had absolutely been cast. There's enough evidence out there to prove that. The minifig appeared in 4705 and 4709 , both of which released on 9-1-01. The film premiered on 11-4-01, so that's just over two months between the time sets hit shelves and the first audience learned that Peeves was absent from the final cut. Add to that the development time for those sets, and there's a pretty large window from the time the sets were finalized, approved, and sent to production, and the time when the film was finalized and sent to print. There's a process in place to get merchandise approved during the film production process. There's almost certainly not a process in place to rescind that approval when a change to the film renders one of those designs inaccurate. So, the two Peeves sets make it to market, but the character is excised from any future set designs once it's clear that he isn't going to be in the first film. Once production starts on the second film, and they haven't even put the character on the cast list, it becomes clear that Peeves is likely out for the entire run. If they start making sets based on the upcoming TV series, Peeves might reappear, since even a premium cable season has more room to expand the story than a single feature film."

It seems reasonable doesn't it. Yet, I've never encountered a situation like that before in an IP situation. It would definitely be an interesting question to put to a Lego rep (hint, hint @CapnRex101 ).

@StyleCounselor:
All sources say that actor Rik Mayall was cast to play Peeves. Chris Columbus has done interviews where he claimed they weren't happy with the character design and decided to cut those scenes, and again saying that _some_ footage was filmed and that he'd try to make sure it made it into the deleted scenes on a future release (which of course has never happened). But the character did make it into the official video game adaptation of the first film, and the character portrayal is reportedly exactly what would have been expected of a Rik Mayall performance. But the fact that it got mentioned twice in interviews with the director seems proof enough that this really was on the table at some point.

As for other instances, I'm pretty sure there are other film licenses where the LEGO sets from the initial release don't exactly line up with what appeared on screen *coughIronMan3cough*. Outside of the LEGOsphere, I distinctly remember that early Batman Begins action figures had Liam Neeson's character identified as Henri Ducard, and that's definitely not who his character really was. I can't remember for sure, but I think they even slipped in an action figure of Ken Watanabe's character, labelled Ra's al Ghul, shortly before the film opened. Of course, this was never an issue for the LEGO sets because the only two they've released that were distinctly based on Batman Begins came 16 years after the film.

@CapnRex101 said:
"The closest I can think of is the likely situation with Dryden Vos. He obviously never made it to sets, but I strongly suspect his original alien design was planned to appear somewhere in the Solo range, potentially in 75219 AT-Hauler with the Hylobon Enforcers."

Now you got me thinking about the possibility of seeing a minifig based on the original Ep4 footage of Jabba the Hutt...

"Of course, there have been many instances of sets based on concept artwork that do not entirely reflect the final film or television series, with 75104 Kylo Ren's Command Shuttle probably the clearest example. The designers have talked quite extensively about never being informed that the wings folded out and only finding out when the trailer was released, far too late to change the set."

I also distinctly remember seeing toys of that released in white, light-grey, and dark-grey, none of which were accurate to the film.

" @PurpleDave - I have no doubt there is a process by which the IP holder can tell LEGO and other partners that something has changed, but the sets containing Peeves were presumably too far into production to be updated and the change was not considered important enough to delay or cancel the sets. If there was a situation where something really did need to be changed urgently, maybe the IP holder would have to give some form of compensation for disruption to license holders."

I'm sure it's possible. The question is, is it likely to happen. Someone down the food chain is likely being tasked with approving merchandise, but it's ultimately the director who decides (sometimes during editing) what makes it onto the screen and what gets cut. They're going to be more concerned about turning over a film that will be successful, not in the accuracy of any toys that are based on it. If the director ever does get involved in that approval process, it's likely one very short meeting per company, and then it's back to focusing on the film. For any correction to occur, someone would first have to remember that a toy based on that specific scene was in the lineup, and they'd have to care about it enough to take time away from film production and focus on something that's ultimately not likely to see a significant financial impact over any change in accuracy. Toy merch may be a major contributor to a film's bottom line, but that doesn't mean it's a highly respected one.

@CapnRex101
@PurpleDave

Quite the interesting discussion. I appreciate the input. However, the question I think would even more interesting to ask the license holder (Lego) is the situation that seems to be unique with Peeves.

Specifically, does the license holder of only a movie-based license lose the right to future use of a character if the character never makes it into the actual movie- even though: 1) the character was supposed to be in the movie(s); and 2) toys made by the holder and based on the character were approved and produced from the outset?

Clearly, this would depend almost entirely upon the terms of the license. Yet, it would be very interesting to have Lego's point of view on the issue.

@PurpleDave said:"As for other instances, I'm pretty sure there are other film licenses where the LEGO sets from the initial release don't exactly line up with what appeared on screen *coughIronMan3cough*."

Well, that one was a deliberate misinformation campaign. Although you have to admit that Trevor Slattery's Death Zamboni would have made for an interesting scene...

@StyleCounselor:
I don't know that we'll ever get one, but I'd certainly be curious about any official answers. That said, here are some of the issues that might play into it. Those two sets _did_ get approved, and unless that approval got rescinded, they were clear to go ahead with them without removing Peeves (and indeed, they may not have been aware that Peeves was being cut from the film). Going forward, sets would still need to be approved, and they would no longer have the nebulous nature of a film in production to hide behind. Peeves was out, as of November 2001, and no set that included him could claim to be fully based on the film anymore.

Then there's deleted scenes. If the footage hits the cutting room floor, and gets thrown right in the incinerator, nobody else gets to see it, and it becomes more difficult to base any merchandise on those cut scenes. However, if it gets included in the home video release, by way of a deleted scenes roll, that footage is now officially released, even if not officially part of the film itself. Does that open up the deleted scene footage to use by their merchandising partners? Is the fact that no later sets included Peeves due to his absence from the film, or merely his absence from the bonus features?

Of course, the real problem question in all of this is pretty simple. Are they allowed to discuss the terms of the licensing contract? Can they even tell us the truth about Peeves? TLG has definitely tried to brush off harder questions by fudging the truth, or even outright lying, in situations when they clearly didn't want there to be any further discussion.

LEGO looks to be taking HP seriously. …There’s a lot of great stuff in that lineup.

@PurpleDave said:
"Is Nearly Headless Nick the X-Wing of the Harry Potter ghosts? "

This comment is so funny when taken out of context.

I take issue with 76449 being for ages 9+. That set could give adults nightmares.

@PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor:
Peeves had absolutely been cast. There's enough evidence out there to prove that. The minifig appeared in 4705 and 4709, both of which released on 9-1-01. The film premiered on 11-4-01, so that's just over two months between the time sets hit shelves and the first audience learned that Peeves was absent from the final cut. Add to that the development time for those sets, and there's a pretty large window from the time the sets were finalized, approved, and sent to production, and the time when the film was finalized and sent to print. There's a process in place to get merchandise approved during the film production process. There's almost certainly not a process in place to rescind that approval when a change to the film renders one of those designs inaccurate. So, the two Peeves sets make it to market, but the character is excised from any future set designs once it's clear that he isn't going to be in the first film. Once production starts on the second film, and they haven't even put the character on the cast list, it becomes clear that Peeves is likely out for the entire run. If they start making sets based on the upcoming TV series, Peeves might reappear, since even a premium cable season has more room to expand the story than a single feature film."

Upcoming TV series? I'm sorry, what???

@BrickAnomie said:
"Upcoming TV series? I'm sorry, what???"

You haven't seen any of the news about WB preparing for a season-per-book HP series on HBO? It was first announced over four years ago, but they were waiting out a distribution rights deal that just ended last week. At present, all they've really done is announce the casting of some of the Hogwarts adults. None of the kids have been announced.

Thanks Brickset team for uploading these official pictures from Lego site already. The 76454 looks impressive next to 76435 !

@BrickAnomie said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"Is Nearly Headless Nick the X-Wing of the Harry Potter ghosts? "

This comment is so funny when taken out of context.
"

It's just that this is the third version (75954, 76389, 76454), and they still haven't produced a single Bloody Baron. I'd only recently realized they'd produced the Grey Lady, and had still missed that they'd released the Fat Friar. Looking at the lifestyle images for this new set, they've got the Fat Friar on the matching Great Hall set, so there's a distinct possibility that the next two sections of the castle will include the Grey Lady and Bloody Baron. But still, they've produced minifigs of _five_ ghosts so far, and not managed to include all four of the House Ghosts.

BTW, Moaning Myrtle would be the Snowspeeder of HP ghosts, by the same logic.