LEGO How to Train Your Dragon Toothless announced!

Aww, he's so cute! Looks just like a chibi version of him.

Dragon!!!!

TLG is overdoing it with the renders…

I don't know, I think it's kind of cute.

I really should sit down and actually watch some of these "How to Train your Dragon" movies, at some point.

All I know of Toothless is those really funny behind-the-scenes skits with Kit Harington.

The large movie version but the size of Toothless from the original books?

After reading through all the comments, now I’m wondering what sort of reaction I’d get if I started plonking this on our club layouts with a Viking minifig seated on its back.

thats just a bean

Why make it so short? He looks like Stitch on some pictures.

What's up with those stickers for his eyes and face details? They look very off, like they are a matte finish or a bad render.

With a head that big those puny wings are going to be useless.

Interesting.... his tail design is from the 2nd and 3rd movies, not the 1st. Huh.

Adorable!

A £20 set for £60.

@SinKiller_Nick said:
"What's up with those stickers for his eyes and face details? They look very off, like they are a matte finish or a bad render."

I wonder, are those actually stickers? Or is it a black-on-black print? In these pictures it doesn't quite look like a sticker (too close to the edge and too thin), but something indeed looks off. Or maybe just some weird render issue....

One thing that is very noticable in these renders is the absence of mold marks, particularly on the ingot pieces...and is it weird that I think this actually looks worse?

Anyone else far more impressed by the fish?

When I check the survey results I see an option: "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji". What's up with that? Anybody else seeing it?

@CCC said:
"With a head that big those puny wings are going to be useless."

Clearly crossbred with a Gronkle. Should be flight-capable, but won’t be winning any races that don’t involve eating rocks.

@WizardOfOss:
It’s hard to tell from some of the pics, but the shot below the one where he’s got the fish in his mouth, I don’t see any evidence of stickerage. Not for the eyes, and not even for the scales. Maybe some of these pics just used custom stickers to sub in for prints so they could get images published in time, or it could just be some weird artifacting that doesn’t even mean anything.

it's cute, but nothing I want or need

My kids will probably love it

@bricks4everyone said:
"When I check the survey results I see an option: "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji". What's up with that? Anybody else seeing it?"

Google Translate says it's Polish for "Maybe, I haven't made a decision yet."

Would have preferred a properly-proportioned, minifig-scale set. But I’m happy about the new 5852 recolor in black.

ICONS?

minifig scale pleeeaase

I do like this chibi Toothless, but I can’t say I would have minded an un-chibi version. I wonder if they were aiming for a similar scale as Simba or the Dalmatian Puppy and the chibification was necessary to achieve it?

@johleth said:
"Chibi Toothless, massive price. "

I was thinking a Funko Pop when I first saw this

Dude, this looks adorable.

This is to Toothless what Grogu is to Yoda. Cute and all but not the same character: Grogless...

@PurpleDave said:
"After reading through all the comments, now I’m wondering what sort of reaction I’d get if I started plonking this on our club layouts with a Viking minifig seated on its back."

Do it! And please report back.

I love Toothless and this model looks well-designed, but I'm confused about why it's so chibi-styled. Toothless doesn't look like this! I've been dreaming of LEGO How To Train Your Dragon sets but this isn't what I expected.

For a Night Fury, he seems rather harmless.

@StyleCounselor said:
"'Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji'?

I would like an additional offering, 'Won't be able to make a decision until I see a comparison with the shadow box version.'"

Dude. Didn’t you watch the movie? You wouldn’t be able to see anything. Nightfuries are invisible in the dark.

I love How to Train Your Dragon, I've been so looking forward to seeing these sets. I was expecting animated-movie accurate, minifigure-scale models on the level of the better Ninjago dragons we've seen over the years. I'm dissapointed by the cutesy, Disney-styled cartoon character this turned out to be.

I mean, it’s a pretty ugly dragon to begin with if Lego are going with the source material.

Ok, that is absolutely adorable. I love that they went for whimsy in a small set like this. It's instantly recognisable and won't cost bank.

Cute as hell.

Watch everyone who would complain if it cost $$$ and ask why Lego can't make smaller sets for adults now complain.

@The1RealmShifter said:
"Even though I’m not a huge fan of this, I am a fan of what it represents! Please make actual HTTYD sets!!!"

yes ... THIS !!!

Maybe I’m mistaken, but the 18+ rating and Icons label would seem to be more related to the lack of another available home in the LEGO portfolio?

I don’t know this series well but also cannot understand remaking “classic” animation films as “new/different” animation films like this or LILO and Stitch and The Lion King.

@PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"'Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji'?

I would like an additional offering, 'Won't be able to make a decision until I see a comparison with the shadow box version.'"

Dude. Didn’t you watch the movie? You wouldn’t be able to see anything. Nightfuries are invisible in the dark."

My son largely watched those without me. I'm ignorant of those movies aside from a plane ride where was falling in an out of sleep. Are they worth watching? All of them?

In what world is this a "stunning replica" for "adult fans?" The proportions are all wrong and it looks like something for kids. Is it possible they're making a bigger, actually accurate one and they got the product descriptions mixed up?

When I heard about this set I was excited because LEGO has done dragons really well recently and I was looking forward to seeing Toothless in LEGO form. This atrocity is not by any means what I wanted.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"'Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji'?

I would like an additional offering, 'Won't be able to make a decision until I see a comparison with the shadow box version.'"

Dude. Didn’t you watch the movie? You wouldn’t be able to see anything. Nightfuries are invisible in the dark."

My son largely watched those without me. I'm ignorant of those movies aside from a plane ride where was falling in an out of sleep. Are they worth watching? All of them?"

They are very much worth watching, and you should do so at your earliest convenience.

@TheOtherMike said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"'Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji'?

I would like an additional offering, 'Won't be able to make a decision until I see a comparison with the shadow box version.'"

Dude. Didn’t you watch the movie? You wouldn’t be able to see anything. Nightfuries are invisible in the dark."

My son largely watched those without me. I'm ignorant of those movies aside from a plane ride where was falling in an out of sleep. Are they worth watching? All of them?"

They are very much worth watching, and you should do so at your earliest convenience."

The TV series, too. After you watch the movies, you should definitely watch the series.

So when rumors of this set first started floating around, I was already not sold. $70 bucks for a non-minifigure scale Toothless didn't sound that interesting to me, and I'd rather they make a full wave of a theme. For example:
$10 Gronkle set
$15 Deadly Nadder
$20 Toothless
$25 Monstrous Nightmare
$30 Hideous Zippleback.

Something like that might end up more expensive than the one set, and some poseability or details might have to be cut for the smaller ones, but it would create scale accurate representations of the Riders of Berk and stay affordable.

But wow... this is even worse than I expected.

Not that its unsalvageable, its a very cute chibi design for Toothless. But at the same time I'd rather have this design as something like a keychain or a plushie, it just doesn't really work as a giant LEGO model. Others have mentioned it has Brickheadz proportions and while I don't think it quite matches those either, a set similar to those would be much more befitting this design. Why make a giant adult collectors item out of something that works better as a little charm for kids?

@PurpleDave said:
" @GSR_MataNui said:
"So when rumors of this set first started floating around, I was already not sold. $70 bucks for a non-minifigure scale Toothless didn't sound that interesting to me, and I'd rather they make a full wave of a theme. For example:
$10 Gronkle set
$15 Deadly Nadder
$20 Toothless
$25 Monstrous Nightmare
$30 Hideous Zippleback."

Those prices seem unrealistically low, if you want them to look better than a 4+ theme."

That wave sounds awesome, but I agree. The prices would be far higher, unfortunately.

Huge fan of the franchise but I don't like this. Why are we never allowed to express dislike in these polls?

@BabuBrick said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @GSR_MataNui said:
"So when rumors of this set first started floating around, I was already not sold. $70 bucks for a non-minifigure scale Toothless didn't sound that interesting to me, and I'd rather they make a full wave of a theme. For example:
$10 Gronkle set
$15 Deadly Nadder
$20 Toothless
$25 Monstrous Nightmare
$30 Hideous Zippleback."

Those prices seem unrealistically low, if you want them to look better than a 4+ theme."

That wave sounds awesome, but I agree. The prices would be far higher, unfortunately."

I mean, I’d love to get them all, if it happened, but I think $30 is probably the basement price, with the Zippleback likely going over $100 if they really wanted to do them justice.

@PurpleDave said:
" @BabuBrick said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @GSR_MataNui said:
"So when rumors of this set first started floating around, I was already not sold. $70 bucks for a non-minifigure scale Toothless didn't sound that interesting to me, and I'd rather they make a full wave of a theme. For example:
$10 Gronkle set
$15 Deadly Nadder
$20 Toothless
$25 Monstrous Nightmare
$30 Hideous Zippleback."

Those prices seem unrealistically low, if you want them to look better than a 4+ theme."

That wave sounds awesome, but I agree. The prices would be far higher, unfortunately."

I mean, I’d love to get them all, if it happened, but I think $30 is probably the basement price, with the Zippleback likely going over $100 if they really wanted to do them justice."

Agreed.

@Yooha said:
""...and articulated joints to allow for versatile posing."
Yet he sits on every picture."

With legs so short, how could you tell, lol?

Why did they have to make it look like this?? Me and a couple of mates are big HTTYD fans and were so excited to see a 700+ piece Toothless model, and we get... this odd-looking, cutesy thing?

Now, of course, nowhere said it would be an accurate model, but that's what we get for getting our hopes up I guess :/

I love it, it's so cute and How To Train Your Dragon is my favorite animated trilogy.

@_Brickasaurus_ said:
"Why did they have to make it look like this?? Me and a couple of mates are big HTTYD fans and were so excited to see a 700+ piece Toothless model, and we get... this odd-looking, cutesy thing?

Now, of course, nowhere said it would be an accurate model, but that's what we get for getting our hopes up I guess :/ "

Based on how well LEGO has done with accuracy recently, there was no reason to suspect it wouldn't be accurate. It's cute, sure, but it's not what I wanted at all. I'm more likely to pick up the Disney Dalmatian set than this, even though I have a way bigger interest in the HTTYD movies than 101 Dalmatians. At least the Dalmatian set looks exactly like the dogs from the movie.

@_Brickasaurus_ said:
"Why did they have to make it look like this?? Me and a couple of mates are big HTTYD fans and were so excited to see a 700+ piece Toothless model, and we get... this odd-looking, cutesy thing?

Now, of course, nowhere said it would be an accurate model, but that's what we get for getting our hopes up I guess :/ "

Exactly this.
One only has to look at other 18+ sets like Simba and Dalmatian Puppy in how well these were designed , to see how imho how awful this is.

@AllenSmith:
Beauty and the Beast is really good. I still think that I prefer all three HTTYD movies over it, but I definitely respect that opinion.

@AllenSmith said:"The flight sequences are remarkable feats of composition and emotion."

Oh, heck yes. One of those cases where one scene by itself is worth the price of admission.

@AllenSmith said:
"Yes, all of them. They are uncommonly good, and uncommonly strong throughout for sequels.

I won't go so far as @BabuBrick to say they're the best animated films of all time—in my book, that award goes to Beauty and the Beast, which completely deserved Best Picture—but they're easily the best US animated films since Up, the best Dreamworks animated films by far, and they are top-tier in animated film history. The flight sequences are remarkable feats of composition and emotion.

I can't imagine a live-action film adding anything positive to this franchise. These films had visual poetry that only animation can provide."

It wasn’t even a secret that the only reason BatB got a Best Picture nod was because they felt they needed to applaud the technical achievement of the 3D ballroom scene. If Best Animated had existed at the time, it would have likely been a lock to win, but the voters (particularly in the Animated category, where they have different criteria than just “best film to at happens to be animated”) have been known to throw out a curveball on occasion. But best of all time? It’s not a bad film, but that’s going up against Pixar’s catalog (I’d be hard pressed to name five Pixar films that I’d rank below BatB), Dreamworks (I can name at least ten films I liked better), Laika, and Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. I’d say Aardman, too, but their best stuff was all coproduced with Dreamworks.

As for Up, again, I like it, and the opening sequence is one of the most emotional scene’s in Pixar’s library, but their very next film was Brave, and since then they’ve done Inside Out and Elemental.

Strictly from Dreamworks, I’d definitely rank the HTTYD set over Kung Fu Panda’s entire run (that last one just felt empty, with most of the original cast missing), but I honestly don’t know how I’d rank it against the Shrek franchise (and that answer may change anyways, when Shrek 5 comes out).

It’s also hard to ignore Studio Ghibli, perhaps the only foreign animation studio that has managed to stand toe-to-toe with any of these others in an industry that heavily favors the output of Hollywood.

Plus, there’s all the stuff that Disney itself has produced, of which I could probably name at least half a dozen other films I prefer. Aside from the CGI ballroom sequence, BatB seems mostly favored for having the only Disney Princess with brown hair, or who’s an avowed bibliophile. But the plot isn’t particularly groundbreaking, and the Beast becomes utterly forgettable once his curse is lifted.

Lego dragons have come a long way since the days of 7094 and 7048!

@BrickAnomie said:
"Lego dragons have come a long way since the days of 7094 and 7048!"

And even those were far beyond the days of 6082 and 6007.

@BabuBrick said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @GSR_MataNui said:
"So when rumors of this set first started floating around, I was already not sold. $70 bucks for a non-minifigure scale Toothless didn't sound that interesting to me, and I'd rather they make a full wave of a theme. For example:
$10 Gronkle set
$15 Deadly Nadder
$20 Toothless
$25 Monstrous Nightmare
$30 Hideous Zippleback."

Those prices seem unrealistically low, if you want them to look better than a 4+ theme."

That wave sounds awesome, but I agree. The prices would be far higher, unfortunately."

With license tax probably, but build wise sounds about right to me. Ninjago and Creator have proven they can pull it off. Chompy as depicted in 71718 is around the same size as Toothless and has perfect articulation, 70599 is already close to the Nadder, just with a smaller head, and even under the price I suggested. 31032, 31073, 71810, 31102, 71800... LEGO has made plenty of well detailed and articulated Dragon models for $20 and under, with them being in the size range of the HoTYD's cast. The only thing stopping them is every theme having to have increments of 10 bucks instead of 5 and the flagship being $100.

Then again I've always been one to bellyache about Ninjas pulling up in cars the size of houses and motorcycles twice their height so maybe keeping the size of this things accurate and logical is just on me.

@PurpleDave said:
" @AllenSmith said:
"Yes, all of them. They are uncommonly good, and uncommonly strong throughout for sequels.

I won't go so far as @BabuBrick to say they're the best animated films of all time—in my book, that award goes to Beauty and the Beast, which completely deserved Best Picture—but they're easily the best US animated films since Up, the best Dreamworks animated films by far, and they are top-tier in animated film history. The flight sequences are remarkable feats of composition and emotion.

I can't imagine a live-action film adding anything positive to this franchise. These films had visual poetry that only animation can provide."

It wasn’t even a secret that the only reason BatB got a Best Picture nod was because they felt they needed to applaud the technical achievement of the 3D ballroom scene. If Best Animated had existed at the time, it would have likely been a lock to win, but the voters (particularly in the Animated category, where they have different criteria than just “best film to at happens to be animated”) have been known to throw out a curveball on occasion. But best of all time? It’s not a bad film, but that’s going up against Pixar’s catalog (I’d be hard pressed to name five Pixar films that I’d rank below BatB), Dreamworks (I can name at least ten films I liked better), Laika, and Batman: Mask of the Phantasm. I’d say Aardman, too, but their best stuff was all coproduced with Dreamworks.

As for Up, again, I like it, and the opening sequence is one of the most emotional scene’s in Pixar’s library, but their very next film was Brave, and since then they’ve done Inside Out and Elemental.

Strictly from Dreamworks, I’d definitely rank the HTTYD set over Kung Fu Panda’s entire run (that last one just felt empty, with most of the original cast missing), but I honestly don’t know how I’d rank it against the Shrek franchise (and that answer may change anyways, when Shrek 5 comes out).

It’s also hard to ignore Studio Ghibli, perhaps the only foreign animation studio that has managed to stand toe-to-toe with any of these others in an industry that heavily favors the output of Hollywood.

Plus, there’s all the stuff that Disney itself has produced, of which I could probably name at least half a dozen other films I prefer. Aside from the CGI ballroom sequence, BatB seems mostly favored for having the only Disney Princess with brown hair, or who’s an avowed bibliophile. But the plot isn’t particularly groundbreaking, and the Beast becomes utterly forgettable once his curse is lifted."

Beauty and the Beast had groundbreaking animation, so it was a standout technical achievement.

The fairy tale was classic, but told with flair and depth. The characters had complexity well beyond their stock roles. The comic relief was never gratuitous, always moving the story forward. The crisis had real stakes.

It was a love story, and it was a good one.

Most importantly, it was also a musical, and it was an exceptional one. But the score and the lyrics were top notch.

Plenty of other films have had some of those attributes, but finding them all in one place is what makes the film remarkable, and why I think it's the best.

I love it!!!

@CCC said:
"For some reason the results page is showing a ninth option "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji", which translated means the same as the not made up my mind option."

@bricks4everyone said:
"When I check the survey results I see an option: "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji". What's up with that? Anybody else seeing it?"
I noticed that, too. Maybe there’s an in-joke. I’m not familiar enough with the source material to recognise it if there is.

@Zander said:
" @CCC said:
"For some reason the results page is showing a ninth option "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji", which translated means the same as the not made up my mind option."

@bricks4everyone said:
"When I check the survey results I see an option: "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji". What's up with that? Anybody else seeing it?"
I noticed that, too. Maybe there’s an in-joke. I’m not familiar enough with the source material to recognise it if there is.

"

No, I don't think it's an in-joke, just a glitch on the site.

@BabuBrick said:
" @Zander said:
" @CCC said:
"For some reason the results page is showing a ninth option "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji", which translated means the same as the not made up my mind option."

@bricks4everyone said:
"When I check the survey results I see an option: "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji". What's up with that? Anybody else seeing it?"
I noticed that, too. Maybe there’s an in-joke. I’m not familiar enough with the source material to recognise it if there is.

"

No, I don't think it's an in-joke, just a glitch on the site."

Probably has a damaged tail fin, and can’t fly right anymore (and there’s your in-joke).

@PurpleDave said:
" @BabuBrick said:
" @Zander said:
" @CCC said:
"For some reason the results page is showing a ninth option "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji", which translated means the same as the not made up my mind option."

@bricks4everyone said:
"When I check the survey results I see an option: "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji". What's up with that? Anybody else seeing it?"
I noticed that, too. Maybe there’s an in-joke. I’m not familiar enough with the source material to recognise it if there is.

"

No, I don't think it's an in-joke, just a glitch on the site."

Probably has a damaged tail fin, and can’t fly right anymore (and there’s your in-joke)."

LOL!

I’m only marginally better at picking “best” than I am at picking favourites, however, any discussion of excellent animated films ought to at least have a mention of the late, great and gone far too young Satoshi Kon’s work, or Don Bluth, or for that matter and on the lighter end, Wallace & Gromit.

(Or if we’re going classic, Lotte Reiniger’s incredible shadow plays.) (Or if you want to be depressed for a week, When the Wind Blows…) (Not to mention, while I have yet to personally watch much of it, Eastern Europe’s got a pretty incredible reputation for animation.) (Ernest et Célestine!) (Persepolis!)

Animation costs so bloody much to make that both what gets produced and the discussions afterwards tends to get dominated by a few companies but there is other stuff and much of it is very, very good and worth exploring off the deeply beaten path of Disney, Pixar and Studio Ghibli to find. Including How To Train Your Dragon..!

(Which in my opinion as well as just plain being a good film, is a remarkably good bit of disability narrative, and those don’t come along every day. Or year.)

@Zander said:
" @CCC said:
"For some reason the results page is showing a ninth option "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji", which translated means the same as the not made up my mind option."

@bricks4everyone said:
"When I check the survey results I see an option: "Moze jeszcze nie podjalem decyzji". What's up with that? Anybody else seeing it?"
I noticed that, too. Maybe there’s an in-joke. I’m not familiar enough with the source material to recognise it if there is.

I’m seeing it also… maybe it’s the missing poll option I was hoping for …and it translates to something like ….

No, I’m not going to buy it, but it would if the design wasnt a glorified brickheadz

"

Best animated film discussions should ALWAYS include the Iron Giant and the Polar Express. The later film, (uncanny valley issues aside) is an amazing film, while Iron Giant never gets the love he deserves!

@Murdoch17 said:
"Best animated film discussions should ALWAYS include the Iron Giant and the Polar Express. The later film, (uncanny valley issues aside) is an amazing film, while Iron Giant never gets the love he deserves!"

"Superman..."

@Murdoch17 said:
"Best animated film discussions should ALWAYS include…the Polar Express."

Speaking of animation that my watching of would end in violence…. PE is not just the uncanny valley. It looks damn creepy. My dad loves it, but I’ve made it very clear that he needs to get his watching in when I’m not visiting.

@AllenSmith said:
"Beauty and the Beast had groundbreaking animation, so it was a standout technical achievement."

It had one groundbreaking scene, combining CGI and hand-drawn 2D animation. The rest of the film apparently did blend other CGI elements with the 2D animation, but not to the point that the audience would have been aware. The ballroom scene is the only reason it got an Oscar nod, and the lack of a Best Animated category was the only reason they opted to burn a Best Picture slot on it. There are enough nominees that a category can stay competitive, even if they give a token salute to something they know won’t win.

"The fairy tale was classic, but told with flair and depth. The characters had complexity well beyond their stock roles. The comic relief was never gratuitous, always moving the story forward. The crisis had real stakes."

You just described Frozen. Frozen, alongside Tangled, is notable for a major shift at Disney where the male leads are truly well-developed characters, with flaws that give them personality. Mostly, the Prince role has been an ill-defined object to be obtained by the heroine. Except in cases where they’re also the main antagonist.

"It was a love story, and it was a good one."

https://screenrant.com/things-beauty-beast-beast-havent-aged-well/

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the story, and then some (I forgot about Lumiere, but WB has more or less disavowed Pepe Le Pew for the same behavior). I’m really surprised there wasn’t a backlash against it a few years back, but it must have fallen out of the public eye enough that only the true fans were thinking about it.

@Hiratha:
I did give Aardman Studios a nod, but mentioned that their best films were all co-productions with Dreamworks. That includes the first W&G feature, Chicken Run, and Flushed Away. Studios that I didn’t mention include Illumination (as much as I love the Despicable Me/Minions franchise, that’s really their _only_ standout achievement, and not all of the components were top-notch) and Blue Sky (they don’t even have anything I feel warrants a shout-out).

Not doing a line of sets in 2010 when the original film released was already one of the biggest missed opportunities. If this is the only HTTYD set we get…

HTTYD is essentially LEGO Vikings, it’s practically perfect for a LEGO theme. Ninjago has shown that they can create highly detailed brick built dragons for somewhat reasonable prices. I would absolutely get this if it were a properly proportioned version of Toothless, but I have no interest in this weird stylized version.

I wonder if there is perhaps an issue with SpinMaster/Playmobil having rights to playsets forcing this to be 18+? But in that case give me a Rivendell sized Isle of Berk set please and thank you.

@rishi_eel said:
"I wonder if there is perhaps an issue with SpinMaster/Playmobil having rights to playsets forcing this to be 18+? But in that case give me a Rivendell sized Isle of Berk set please and thank you."

If Playmobil currently has the rights, there’s a strong possibility that Playmobil _formerly_ had the rights. This would be far from the first time that licensing rights changed hands unexpectedly, and the first we heard of it was seeing a new set pop up, either from TLG or their competitors.

Just watch the LA film in cinemas and all I can say is that, I'm really bummed out we didn't get a Ninjago esk toothless.

@HAL_9001 said:
" @legoninja27 said:
""The unholy offspring of Lightning and Death itself." Sure bud. "

More like, "Thanks for nothing, you useless reptile!""

Saw the movie at a prescreening yesterday, and Mason Thames’ (Hiccup) inflection of this line is insane.

I really don't understand this at all. How is this based on Universal's cash grab remake that no one cares about, exactly? I'm curious if anyone at all reviewed LEGO's (what I assume to be) AI-generated press release before publishing it.

Perhaps they just pushed it out and didn't want to spend much time on it because they were anticipating Universal to copyright claim this and forced LEGO to take it down. Universal is really good at that--so good, in fact, that they're able to copyright claim things they have no ownership over. :-P

As others have already expressed, I'm also quite tired of LEGO's use of renders over photos. I'm fairly positive the completed model will look much worse considering that black is the most common (and as such, arguably worst) offenders of LEGO's poor color matching.

@PurpleDave said:
" @AllenSmith said:
"Beauty and the Beast had groundbreaking animation, so it was a standout technical achievement."

It had one groundbreaking scene, combining CGI and hand-drawn 2D animation. The rest of the film apparently did blend other CGI elements with the 2D animation, but not to the point that the audience would have been aware. The ballroom scene is the only reason it got an Oscar nod, and the lack of a Best Animated category was the only reason they opted to burn a Best Picture slot on it. There are enough nominees that a category can stay competitive, even if they give a token salute to something they know won’t win.

"The fairy tale was classic, but told with flair and depth. The characters had complexity well beyond their stock roles. The comic relief was never gratuitous, always moving the story forward. The crisis had real stakes."

You just described Frozen. Frozen, alongside Tangled, is notable for a major shift at Disney where the male leads are truly well-developed characters, with flaws that give them personality. Mostly, the Prince role has been an ill-defined object to be obtained by the heroine. Except in cases where they’re also the main antagonist.

"It was a love story, and it was a good one."

https://screenrant.com/things-beauty-beast-beast-havent-aged-well/

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the story, and then some (I forgot about Lumiere, but WB has more or less disavowed Pepe Le Pew for the same behavior). I’m really surprised there wasn’t a backlash against it a few years back, but it must have fallen out of the public eye enough that only the true fans were thinking about it.

@Hiratha :
I did give Aardman Studios a nod, but mentioned that their best films were all co-productions with Dreamworks. That includes the first W&G feature, Chicken Run, and Flushed Away. Studios that I didn’t mention include Illumination (as much as I love the Despicable Me/Minions franchise, that’s really their _only_ standout achievement, and not all of the components were top-notch) and Blue Sky (they don’t even have anything I feel warrants a shout-out)."

Given that Disney's Beauty and the Beast is based on Villeneuve's book, La Belle et la Bête, which was itself inspired by the actual life of Petrus Gonsalvus and his wife Catherine Raffelin, whom both lived in the late 1500's / early 1600's, it's fair to say that the story has aged perfectly well. I mean, it's only been around for several hundred years or so, afterall.

This fact should be even more readily apparent by pointing out it's one of my daughter's favorite movies (she likes Beauty and the Beast far more than Frozen), LEGO just released a Beauty and the Beast set not long ago, and there are countless direct references to it throughout all of modern pop culture, spanning back decades, with the most recent reference I've personally seen being in a video game that was only just released barely over a month ago.

Watched the new film last night. Was it necessary? No. But I still liked it. Directed by one of the original co-directors, scored by the original composer, it does feel like a shot-for-shot remake at times, but it has merit. For one thing, anyone who has an issue with watching a "cartoon", this offers an alternative. For those who want nothing to do with T.J. Miller's work anymore, again, an alternative. Also, while it keeps a lot of the original humor, it also feels like a more serious sibling to the original, so while it feels familiar, it also feels different. I've never read the books that these films were based on, but I've read a little about them, and there's a possibility that the live-action trilogy may hew more closely to the text. Time will tell.

For now, it's made back its budget plus about 50% more, so it shouldn't have any problem breaking even. It's not reviewed as well by the critics, but audience reaction doesn't seem to have suffered any. I don't know who else they could have cast, but Nick Frost just doesn't hold a candle to Craig Ferguson's Gobber, unfortunately. And while they appear to have doubled down on Tuffnut, somehow Ruffnut ended up being cast as cute, curvy, and not even appearing to be distantly related to her own twin brother except by hair color. Snotlout could have had better casting, I think. Russell as Fishlegs is certainly a curious choice, and I'm just imagining him now with the Hidden World mustache. But Nico Parker as Astrid is probably the high point of the new cast. I've only seen her in one other production, which was the first episode of The Last Of Us, but she's got the makings of a solid career ahead of her. Oh, and the guy they cast as Stoick was pretty good, too. Looking forward to Part 2.

@Vesperas said:
"I really don't understand this at all. How is this based on Universal's cash grab remake that no one cares about, exactly? I'm curious if anyone at all reviewed LEGO's (what I assume to be) AI-generated press release before publishing it.

Perhaps they just pushed it out and didn't want to spend much time on it because they were anticipating Universal to copyright claim this and forced LEGO to take it down. Universal is really good at that--so good, in fact, that they're able to copyright claim things they have no ownership over. :-P"

They can't always pull it off, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_City_Studios,_Inc._v._Nintendo_Co.,_Ltd.