It *is* really cool that you can fit the figure in, but it definitely suffers for being able to do it.

Wow, that thing is gigantic! The scale is just amazing.

If the mindig could fit inside 76206, and then 76206 went inside this one …THEN I’d be interested. Missed opportunity lol.

I was right about 76206 fitting inside! The model looks fantastic, though I still think it's a little too big. Even in the lifestyle photos, the model barely fits on the shelf. Also, the proportionas are definitely off in order to accommodate the figure, the torso looks a little bit stretched out.

I have the Hulkbuster from a couple years ago. Personally, I don't see the need for an upgrade. Some cool engineering involved with this set though.

The minifig appears to be only slightly different from the one that came in 40334 (which I found in the clearance pile at my local store). The fitting-inside is a cute feature, but meh. I hate that chest.

£475 and they still don't print the minifigure legs...

I'm a huge LEGO Marvel fan but I'm going to pass on this one. It's almost too big to display, and I think proportionally the chest and waist are a bit off. It's cool that you can fit the smaller, £30 figure inside though.

what in gods name is that price point!!!!!

Another set that is not needed at a silly high price. Good one LEGO, really trying to kill off the Marvel theme with these overpriced lackluster sets, the only good one from recent is the Sanctum and Daily Bugle.

Compromising the look of the model so clearly, just for the gimmick of fitting the action figure inside, is a terrible choice in my opinion

It still doesn't look like the one from the film, to me. It feels too tall, and not stumpy enough. It just looks like a giant Iron Man with bad proportions. And the price really pushes me away from this. I own the previous UCS Hulkbuster, and that one, I felt, was great for its price.

I am trying to figure out the logic of this set. Are we now building sets designed for contraption figures?

The torso proportions look even worse in some of these images. It's awesome that the buildable figure fits inside, but that doesn't excuse the problems with this model's design. That's also one crappy minifigure considering it's the only one in a $500+ set. A 20-inch tall LEGO mech is an incredible feat of engineering, but it's still only twice the height of 76105 for 4.5x the price.

I'd be a lot more forgiving and would be lining up on day one for this set if it was $400, but D2Cs are just getting more and more overpriced. I didn't think any licensed D2C this year would make 76405 Hogwarts Express look like amazing value for money, but here we are...

Ouch, the preliminary vote results are almost as bad as the Black Panther set.

so it fits buildable iron man inside, that's interesting but still WHO CARES xD who needed it.

I honestly don't think it was worth messing with proportions in order to make 76206 fit inside... it makes the set feel like it's a $550 accessory for a $40 toy, in my opinion. I'd much rather have an accurate hulkbuster, and they could've represented iron man inside it in some other fashion.

Wow, the Iron Man buildable figure fits inside?

Back in 2002 we had Exo-Toa, set 8557. It fits a toa. For about 40 USD (2002 value, about 66 USD now) you could get both it and a toa. That Iron Man figure alone is 40 dollar. I'd rather stick to my Exo-Toa for such a feature, even though it's largely technic with some constraction parts.

But what about minifig-scale? What about actual mechs within mechs? 72004 Tech Wizard Showdown did it in 2017 (arguably some Exo-Force sets in 2007 count as earlier examples, but those weren't larger humanoid mechs but more like add-on vehicle packs). It was 40 USD in 2017 (about 48 USD now). That set plays out like a knight hulkbuster. It's not as well-filled though.

And look, those are play sets, not ultra UCS premium gold edition display models.

But what I'm trying to say here is that supersizing a hulkbuster to this extent so another gigantic brick-built figure of Iron Man fits inside is not even all that novel. It's just that: extra size for the sake of one feature. And I deliberately gave those prices of those sets with both occupant and armor. In this gigantic, eye-watering set you can THEN have the OPTION to put another set in it.
It's a bonus at best. But at what cost?
After all, this is a display model, right? So would it matter all that much if you put an Iron Man Figure in it? If so... to what extent did they have to increase the price to build in the features needed to accomodate one?

Will there be a Hulk of similar scale to match with this Hulkbuster?

If not then it seems pointless to have a Hulkbuster of this scale given that it is supposed to be a ‘hulk’ buster…

I wonder how well this is going to sell. They already made a huge Hulkbuster a few years ago. Wouldn’t people who wanted one have already purchased that? If I did own the old one, why would I need a second?

And this also loops back around to the price point. It’s big, but why is it so big? The proportions look completely off, and it’s obvious where they couldn’t cover up a lot of the bricks. It’s another set that feels big and expensive for the sake of being big and expensive.

The Buildable Iron Man fitting in is pretty cute! Though I wouldn’t exactly call it a selling feature. It comes at the cost of being a good display piece due to the misshapen proportions. It doesn’t make for a good toy either at that scale and price point.

Ah, now it makes sense why the torso is way too tall.. that’s a neat feature, but I’d rather they design an accurate torso and leave enough room for just the head of the Iron Man buildable figure.. if this was $400 I might have considered it, but $550 is too much for something that isn’t close enough to 100% accurate for me.

Love this set for how much it annoys people... Guaranteed to be a great seller!

Legs don't look as bad from the front as from the box image, but the torso is still so weird. Cool but unnecessary function with the Iron Man character fitting inside.

@gunther_schnitzel said:
"Will there be a Hulk of similar scale to match with this Hulkbuster?

If not then it seems pointless to have a Hulkbuster of this scale given that it is supposed to be a ‘hulk’ buster…"

Of course

Can’t wait to build hulks panties from 1k pieces.

@GoldenNinja3000 said:
"A 20-inch tall LEGO mech is an incredible feat of engineering, but it's still only twice the height of 76105 for 4.5x the price.
"
A note on the math, if you double the height, you double length and width as well, so volume goes up 8x. The fact that price is only going up 4.5x shows how well engineered this model is, in that it uses a more lightweight structure for its size.

Not a single picture of the back.
Also, stickers.

I actually thinks this looks awful.

The torso is disproportional to how it appears in the movie, just look up the reference photos. It seems to have been made taller and leaner just to fit the buildable Iron Man in it which I think is a bad call.

At time of posting this, around 5% of voters are wiling to buy it. In cases like this, I ask myself how profitable some LEGO sets really are and how expectations wereat the time of greenlighting. After all, ifferent franchise fan bases - and age groups - have different buying habits. Does anyone have facts?

was the ad copy written by an AI...

Butchering a 550€ set so it can fit a 45€ set inside... Also, what does "highly collectable" mean? What does the "highly" supposed to infer here?

So this where all the dark red and gold went instead of the Hogwarts Express

Dreadful set, pointless, horrible. 87% of the poll voters aren't going to buy this thing, and only 9% out of it said that liked despite not going to buy. Yet, we still will going to see another UCS Hulkbuster in three or four years for around $1000~$1200 certainly.

Also, they say it is "highly collectable"... man, they aren't even hiding anymore they're making these oversized $500-700 sets every month just to get money from naive buyers who complain about Lego getting too expensive but still buying like three copies of these things on the first day, lmao...

I like it more knowing that you can fit the bigger buildable figure inside, but I would only buy it if the information plaque has errors. It’s what I’ve come to expect, and would look out of place if everything was correct.

It's neat that 76206 fits inside of it.

But I feel like 76105 was a perfectly fine depiction of the Hulkbuster at a much more attractive price point.

I'm more of a casual Marvel fan, so this probably just isn't for me.

Sad to say, I’m losing interest in Lego with every new product announcement. Yes, this set is very impressive, but the size and price is ridiculous. Hopefully they will learn quickly from the lack-lustre sales - if the poll results are anything to go by.

I'm looking forward in 2-3 years to see whether LEGO's focus on the adult community (AFOLs and non-AFOLs alike) will be paying out or not. Most of us are quite involved in the LEGO community and we have an idea of what each set is or should be worth. That said, most non-AFOLs have no realy idea what LEGO sets should be worth. They just know it's expensive. Because it has always been.

I think this is the market LEGO is going after: people who don't know much about LEGO, like it but have no intention to become too involved but have the income to get a display set or two a year. And, so far as I can tell, it's working. I've seen adults around me buying sets in the past couple of years, something they would have never done before. Some of them have even bought a couple of other sets after the first one.

For LEGO, this is great news, because:
A) They will still sell tons of playsets to kids and AFOL,
B) They will sell these giant sets to casual LEGO fans who would not have bought sets in the past, and
C) These sets give prestige to their brand, which is something that we should not underestimate.

I'm actually pretty sure that LEGO is willing to cut down on the profit of those sets for the sake of gaining prestige. That is worth A LOT in the long run. I was in the art's business in the past and people I worked with and for prefered to make a small number of sells of prestige items at higher price points than a higher number of sells of less prestigious items at lower price points. Their rationale was that money attracks money. If people with a lot of money buy somehting prestigious from you, others will come. My guess is that LEGO is going that way as well: less sales, more prestige and, in the long run, more profits from both toys AND collectibles.

Otherwise, I have no idea why they are making so many of these huge sets...

So it’s essentially a $590 set if you got the other iron man figure.

"Today, the LEGO Group is excited to announce " ... well, that makes one of us.

Might buy it if it can fit the Beautiful Baby Princess. With teddy bear and potty.

@NathanR2015 said:
" @GoldenNinja3000 said:
"A 20-inch tall LEGO mech is an incredible feat of engineering, but it's still only twice the height of 76105 for 4.5x the price.
"
A note on the math, if you double the height, you double length and width as well, so volume goes up 8x. The fact that price is only going up 4.5x shows how well engineered this model is, in that it uses a more lightweight structure for its size.

"

Careful, logic and facts aren't allowed when complaining about prices.

@eiffel006 said:
"I'm looking forward in 2-3 years to see whether LEGO's focus on the adult community (AFOLs and non-AFOLs alike) will be paying out or not. Most of us are quite involved in the LEGO community and we have an idea of what each set is or should be worth. That said, most non-AFOLs have no realy idea what LEGO sets should be worth. They just know it's expensive. Because it has always been.

I think this is the market LEGO is going after: people who don't know much about LEGO, like it but have no intention to become too involved but have the income to get a display set or two a year. And, so far as I can tell, it's working. I've seen adults around me buying sets in the past couple of years, something they would have never done before. Some of them have even bought a couple of other sets after the first one.

For LEGO, this is great news, because:
A) They will still sell tons of playsets to kids and AFOL,
B) They will sell these giant sets to casual LEGO fans who would not have bought sets in the past, and
C) These sets give prestige to their brand, which is something that we should not underestimate.

I'm actually pretty sure that LEGO is willing to cut down on the profit of those sets for the sake of gaining prestige. That is worth A LOT in the long run. I was in the art's business in the past and people I worked with and for prefered to make a small number of sells of prestige items at higher price points than a higher number of sells of less prestigious items at lower price points. Their rationale was that money attracks money. If people with a lot of money buy somehting prestigious from you, others will come. My guess is that LEGO is going that way as well: less sales, more prestige and, in the long run, more profits from both toys AND collectibles.

Otherwise, I have no idea why they are making so many of these huge sets...

"

I think that makes a lot of sense. The massive sets don’t have to sell a large number of units if they do their job and keep Lego in the zeitgeist.

A lot of complaints about these large sets ignore the fact that Lego continues to sell many smaller sets every year.

This set has the same problem as a few other models of big things, which is confusing scales.

The hulkbuster armor is impressive because it's a huge version of a normal thing: the regular iron man armor. And because it is a huge version, it ends up with somewhat odd proportions. However, when you shrink it down, that sense of scale is lost. So instead of looking like a huge suit of armor, it looks like a normal suit of armor with really bad proportions.

I noticed something similar with 42131 the app controlled bulldozer. It's a fairly accurate model of a gigantic bulldozer, but it looks like an inaccurate version of a regular dozer. Because we lack a good sense of scale and the proportions don't match what we expect to see.

@eiffel006 said:
"...
Otherwise, I have no idea why they are making so many of these huge sets...
"

I think you have it exactly right. These "press release" sets exist primarily as an exercise in advertising.

I don't think it will pay off in the long term. In the past, huge set announcements were an exciting event that happened a few times a year. Now it's happening a few times a month and it is a struggle to keep interested.

Even the most dedicated AFOL is going to become fatigued. As more people with only a peripheral interest in Lego return to pre-pandemic interests, these sets will not make the required impact to justify their existence.

I just hope that TLG is able to alter course, and return to reasonably priced, well designed sets. They have the talent, but it is being wasted in a price point first environment. Lots of huge sets and lots of small sets but great sets, $100-$200, are lacking right now.

@eiffel006 said:
"I'm looking forward in 2-3 years to see whether LEGO's focus on the adult community (AFOLs and non-AFOLs alike) will be paying out or not. Most of us are quite involved in the LEGO community and we have an idea of what each set is or should be worth. That said, most non-AFOLs have no realy idea what LEGO sets should be worth. They just know it's expensive. Because it has always been.

I think this is the market LEGO is going after: people who don't know much about LEGO, like it but have no intention to become too involved but have the income to get a display set or two a year. And, so far as I can tell, it's working. I've seen adults around me buying sets in the past couple of years, something they would have never done before. Some of them have even bought a couple of other sets after the first one.

For LEGO, this is great news, because:
A) They will still sell tons of playsets to kids and AFOL,
B) They will sell these giant sets to casual LEGO fans who would not have bought sets in the past, and
C) These sets give prestige to their brand, which is something that we should not underestimate.

I'm actually pretty sure that LEGO is willing to cut down on the profit of those sets for the sake of gaining prestige. That is worth A LOT in the long run. I was in the art's business in the past and people I worked with and for prefered to make a small number of sells of prestige items at higher price points than a higher number of sells of less prestigious items at lower price points. Their rationale was that money attracks money. If people with a lot of money buy somehting prestigious from you, others will come. My guess is that LEGO is going that way as well: less sales, more prestige and, in the long run, more profits from both toys AND collectibles.

Otherwise, I have no idea why they are making so many of these huge sets... "

I am just as curious, and your parallel to the art business is interesting. It sincerely feels like that's what Lego is doing, especially as they seem to continue to lose faith in their original customers - kids and parents. I'm just wondering how well this is going to hold up as more and more of their current customers get upset and cut back on the spending.

@sjr60 said:
"Love this set for how much it annoys people... Guaranteed to be a great seller!"

Oof I hope Lego doesn't release any sets that annoy you anytime soon, lest you find yourself on the other side ...

8557 did it better :D

@kinggregus said:
"I am trying to figure out the logic of this set. Are we now building sets designed for contraption figures?"

I realise this is probably autocorrect running over "constraction", but I have to say I sort of enjoyed the idea of "contraption figures". (Sorry, Bionicle G2 fans.)

"...featuring Iron Man as he appeared in the mega-hit film Infinity Saga – Age of Ultron." Wow.

@MainBricker said:
"I think I'll wait for the $1000 UCS Hulkbuster which will be released in a couple of years."
You won’t be laughing when it has the same piece count…

@eiffel006 said:
"I'm looking forward in 2-3 years to see whether LEGO's focus on the adult community (AFOLs and non-AFOLs alike) will be paying out or not. Most of us are quite involved in the LEGO community and we have an idea of what each set is or should be worth. That said, most non-AFOLs have no realy idea what LEGO sets should be worth. They just know it's expensive. Because it has always been.

I think this is the market LEGO is going after: people who don't know much about LEGO, like it but have no intention to become too involved but have the income to get a display set or two a year. And, so far as I can tell, it's working. I've seen adults around me buying sets in the past couple of years, something they would have never done before. Some of them have even bought a couple of other sets after the first one.

For LEGO, this is great news, because:
A) They will still sell tons of playsets to kids and AFOL,
B) They will sell these giant sets to casual LEGO fans who would not have bought sets in the past, and
C) These sets give prestige to their brand, which is something that we should not underestimate.

I'm actually pretty sure that LEGO is willing to cut down on the profit of those sets for the sake of gaining prestige. That is worth A LOT in the long run. I was in the art's business in the past and people I worked with and for prefered to make a small number of sells of prestige items at higher price points than a higher number of sells of less prestigious items at lower price points. Their rationale was that money attracks money. If people with a lot of money buy somehting prestigious from you, others will come. My guess is that LEGO is going that way as well: less sales, more prestige and, in the long run, more profits from both toys AND collectibles.

Otherwise, I have no idea why they are making so many of these huge sets...

"

This is the correct and best take.

Hovering around "No it's too expensive" and "No it doesn't interest me."
It's cool that it can fit the Buildable Iron Man, but I can't get behind the fact the proportions have suffered so much to accommodate the gimmick. Especially a gimmick that requires you to pay extra on top of the $550 price.
Without the gimmick, I feel they could've really cleaned up the design and made it more accurate. Wouldn't fix the high price, but at least it'd be more visually appealing.

@eiffel006 said:
"I'm looking forward in 2-3 years to see whether LEGO's focus on the adult community (AFOLs and non-AFOLs alike) will be paying out or not. Most of us are quite involved in the LEGO community and we have an idea of what each set is or should be worth. That said, most non-AFOLs have no realy idea what LEGO sets should be worth. They just know it's expensive. Because it has always been.

I think this is the market LEGO is going after: people who don't know much about LEGO, like it but have no intention to become too involved but have the income to get a display set or two a year. And, so far as I can tell, it's working. I've seen adults around me buying sets in the past couple of years, something they would have never done before. Some of them have even bought a couple of other sets after the first one.

"

You make very solid points which so many of our commenters seem to miss. I like to compare Lego to Apple Computers. When apple releases absurdly priced products like the polishing cloth or the famous 4 wheels for their computer for close to 900$ everybody in the tech community were going nuts. But Apple does this to ensure its position as a luxury brand. And that is because luxury items sell well no matter the economic situation. Likewise Lego wants to be the top brick based company that makes the most luxurious things. And so far they this pays of, Lego still is growing and still is the most profitable toy producer in the world. Without a doubt they make too much of this huge sets from Afols perspective, because we read about all of them. But casual people that like Iron Man don't care about other subjects like stadiums or typewriters or world maps. So Lego wants to have a big thing for every rich adult group, except of course sex and war related stuff.

This could actually be a collectible in that no one’s buying it and it becomes rare in sealed form in 10 years because the ones produced are either in the trash or forgotten lol

This feels like a big and expensive miss. I’m a huge Lego and comics fan (especially Marvel comics). This is a set that would be within my budget (at the upper end, granted, but still within it)… and I never for a second considered buying this. It feels like a hamburger from a Guy Fieri-endorsed restaurant, piled high with extra meat patties and bacon and onion rings and mozzarella sticks, etc. It’s like they couldn’t come up with a clever concept, so they just made an old thing bigger, to the point of disgusting excess. I’m sure it’s an impressive engineering accomplishment to get it to support its own weight, but I just don’t care.

@sipuss said:
"Butchering a 550€ set so it can fit a 45€ set inside... Also, what does "highly collectable" mean? What does the "highly" supposed to infer here?"

You gotta smoke something in order to be foolish enough to collect it.

I think it sucks that it fits the Iron Man figure…because to make it work the way the designers intended now you’d have to spend even more money. It’s absurd.

The proportions seem all wrong. I don't understand why Lego would make something this expensive and not even get that right.

@thor96 said:
" @eiffel006 said:
"I'm looking forward in 2-3 years to see whether LEGO's focus on the adult community (AFOLs and non-AFOLs alike) will be paying out or not. Most of us are quite involved in the LEGO community and we have an idea of what each set is or should be worth. That said, most non-AFOLs have no realy idea what LEGO sets should be worth. They just know it's expensive. Because it has always been.

I think this is the market LEGO is going after: people who don't know much about LEGO, like it but have no intention to become too involved but have the income to get a display set or two a year. And, so far as I can tell, it's working. I've seen adults around me buying sets in the past couple of years, something they would have never done before. Some of them have even bought a couple of other sets after the first one.

"

You make very solid points which so many of our commenters seem to miss. I like to compare Lego to Apple Computers. When apple releases absurdly priced products like the polishing cloth or the famous 4 wheels for their computer for close to 900$ everybody in the tech community were going nuts. But Apple does this to ensure its position as a luxury brand. And that is because luxury items sell well no matter the economic situation. Likewise Lego wants to be the top brick based company that makes the most luxurious things. And so far they this pays of, Lego still is growing and still is the most profitable toy producer in the world. Without a doubt they make too much of this huge sets from Afols perspective, because we read about all of them. But casual people that like Iron Man don't care about other subjects like stadiums or typewriters or world maps. So Lego wants to have a big thing for every rich adult group, except of course sex and war related stuff.
"

I think you are making a couple a good points. LEGO needs to position itself as THE top brick company now that other brick companies are making high quality products at lower prices. It's important if they want people to still think "LEGO" even when they see building bricks from other companies.

Making large collectible and prestigious sets aimed at people with money is one way to get there, I think. Another way is to continue to make good toys (which they still do extremely well, I think).

However, I also happen to think it would help them if they used less stickers (especially in large sets), if they improved the quality of their printed pieces, and if colours were uniform from one brick to the others.

They could at least have included that 76206 in this set. Having to buy that separately only adds insult to injury...

In itself it is not a terrible idea, but if they where adamant on a feature like this, they should have just designed (and included) a slightly smaller one that would fit inside a properly proportioned version.

Something called "Ultimate" Collector Series shouldn't be compromised to this degree. At first glance it does look mighty impressive, but look a bit better and it all starts to fall apart.

An impressive assembly of blocks, but another set most people aren't asking for. I'll take the minifig.

The thing that was most notable to me the last time I visited my local Lego store (which I don't do often) was the number of "black box" sets with prices in the $200-$850 range. There are so many of them now. It's great for AFOLs, but kinda sad for an average shopper.

Way huge. Completely wrong proportions. Age of Ultron YET AGAIN.

Marvel's been really bad this year. Oh well. The D2Cs being poor have saved me $800+

I'm utterly amazed Lego can look at this thing next to an image of the mech in the movie, and go "yes, we did well here, it looks accurate". The proportions are completely out of wack, it's not accurate at all. Torso too tall and thin, ankles too thin, shoulder armor is wrong. And for that massive price, it should include the buildable figure that goes inside it. From my own perspective, i can't see this thing selling well.

I'll try and keep this brief because I agree with the majority of commenters here (too big, proportions are weird, too expensive, too inaccurate, not what I personally wanted, rather have a minifigure based playset).

But I have to say separately that that minifigure is shamefully bad. A single figure in a £500 set and it has a tiny bit of (bland, uninteresting) front torso printing.

Goes down in history as maybe the biggest shambles of a set ever in my eyes.

(I'm a MARVEL and LEGO obsessed superfan, who, until recently, got every single MARVEL set on day of release FYI).

So essentially it does exactly the same 'iron man inside' gimmick as 76203 Marvel Iron Man Mech Armour Set but at 4750% of the cost?

@eiffel006 said:
"I think you are making a couple a good points. LEGO needs to position itself as THE top brick company now that other brick companies are making high quality products at lower prices. It's important if they want people to still think "LEGO" even when they see building bricks from other companies."

The problem is, TLG isn't willing to do what it takes to achieve that goal.
If they want to be perceived as the best toy brand, they need to deliver the goods.

Take Apple. Their products are certainly extremely expensive, but they are well engineered and win lots of product comparisons and often lead best-of lists with their stuff.

Or Rolls Royce. Horrendously expensive cars, but extremely well engineered and appointed to the highest level of quality both inside and out.

Or any luxury watchmaker. Same deal as above.

All these other examples are of companies that are well known for being some of the most expensive in their respective fields. But they are also known for extremely high quality and attention to detail.

At the same time - at least over here - there is a growing number of people dissatisfied with the quality of LEGO products. The various problems have been discussed ad nauseum, but the interesting thing is that by now even the average customer, parents etc. are beginning to notice and complain, not just picky AFOLs. And while this trend is gathering momentum, TLG is constantly raising prices, without addressing the quality issues.

Then there is the competition. Several companies are now well known enough to be relevant to a broad audience. And all of them have certain qualities and certain negatives.

Cobi - excellent quality but relatively expensive by now as well.

Mega - interesting licences, but also not cheap, and quality-wise rather hit-and-miss.

BlueBrixx - interesting subject matters especially for the German market, plus of course their no-expense-spared Star Trek line. Otoh the quality of their regular sets is still not always top-notch. But at least the prices are well below the competition.

Then there's the smaller and less well known alternatives like Playtive (produced by Gudi) that still get a wide audience because they are sold at Lidl, ensuring that basically everyone gets to at least be aware of them. (Aldi otoh still sells mainly LEGO on special occasions) .

Summing up, if LEGO wants to become a brand that is perceived as "luxury" (which would at least explain the prices of late), they have to dramatically increase the effort they put into the quality of their products.

76105 is more my scale and budget!

Lego have finally truly lost it. £475 for a 4000 piece set which has been done before on a smaller scale. One minifigure included for that price is absolute daylight robbery.

Reading the comments on various attention grabbing huge price/ piece count sets I am glad that I am not the only one that sees they are so common now that they have lost the WOW factor they used to have. Some of these huge sets I don't even read the articles about because they are becoming so commonplace that they just register as another Lego set I can't afford so it's pointless reading about it. I am becoming very disillusioned with TLG's offerings at any price-point recently, just rehashes or slightly different versions of last years product.

Wow! On their own video 3d view you can see through this thing like it's swiss cheese!

So, you get one crappy minifig (no arm or leg prints) and you have to buy some lame, limp, weak, sad-puppet, constraction figure to complete this one, and I bet it's STILL going to be full of gaps. All this, and it's at least $100 over-priced?! Lego™ should be ashamed.

After all, corporate greed and stupidity is now the accepted reason for the inflation problem. That's why interest rate hikes won't stop it, and will only hurt the non-upper classes.

See, https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/16/us-inflation-federal-reserve-interest-rate-hikes

Disregarding the source material and proportions for moment, as a mech, this looks great. Pleasant to look at and I adore the look of the limbs.

But as a £475 Hulkbuster? I can’t believe the proportions that are intended to be squat yet bulky have been completely sacrificed just to accommodate a £40 buildable figure intended for a much younger audience. Not the best decision making there.

One only needs to look at how the Nintendo D2C sets have been handled to see how integrating mainline sets with the larger expensive ones can be approached. All 3 D2Cs have some sort of compatibility with the Mario digifigure without compromising their ability to stand alone as premium sets. Here, what could have been a solid (albeit oversized) display model has been compromised just to interact with a buildable Iron Man which hasn’t been a hot seller from what we’ve seen.

After the excellent Daily Bugle and Sanctum Sanctorum sets, I thought this theme had found its stride with D2Cs. But huge display models like this just seem poorly thought out from a decision-making point of view, even if they’re mostly solid from a design perspective. But overall, I suppose that’s the point. Sets like these are intended to cater to a much more ‘casual’ audience (though ironically, they offer a substantially longer and more complex building experience).

While Lego’s influx of new adult consumers following the pandemic certainly justifies the uptick in massive display sets, they’re getting overwhelmingly commonplace in my opinion. The new Football Table also comes to mind as something that is far too expensive for what it is. This bubble will eventually burst if the priority is to maximise the price and physical footprint just because of that minimalist, shiny ‘Adults Welcome’ branding, but credit to Lego if this does bear fruit in giving the brand a wider appeal.

Official images didn't help. Still looks awful. Glad I'm saving $550!

Nah, I love the concept of a deluxe UCS Hulkbuster, but this one is an easy pass. Its torso proportions are waaay too bulky compared to the rest of the body. I get that it needs to fit Iron Man inside, but gimmicks don't matter if the actual figure looks like trash. This is a high end collectible, not a kids' toy.

Also it looks like it doesn't have knee articulation (COME ON LEGO, 4049 PIECES AND YOU CAN'T SPARE A FEW TO BUILD KNEE ARTICULATION?!!! IS IT SO ****ING HARD TO GIVE KNEES TO YOUR MECHA?!!!).

@blogzilly said:
" @sipuss said:
"Butchering a 550€ set so it can fit a 45€ set inside... Also, what does "highly collectable" mean? What does the "highly" supposed to infer here?"

You gotta smoke something in order to be foolish enough to collect it.

I think it sucks that it fits the Iron Man figure…because to make it work the way the designers intended now you’d have to spend even more money. It’s absurd."

Yeah, that idea works with smaller sets (like how the 2022 Batmobile can fit inside the Batcave) but it just feels wrong when it involves something that's already $500. Plus the buildable Iron Man wasn't that well received either. Just a big expensive mess all around

I refuse to tell anyone I know about this set in order to try to protect Billund's brand. Yet, I will probably end up getting this used or after it goes to almost %50 in a couple years. I like mechs and IM. But, this set is all kinds of stupid. I can't believe it's so poorly thought out and executed. Everything seems half-done. Most of it should have been left on the design floor.

I have no idea why so many fans seem personally insulted by this set. I don't like it, I'm not going to buy it, there's nothing to be angry about. I'm seeing the same level of vitriol around HasLabs for Marvel and Star Wars. If toys and collecting aren't fun, why even do it?

@AcademyofDrX said:
"I have no idea why so many fans seem personally insulted by this set. I don't like it, I'm not going to buy it, there's nothing to be angry about. I'm seeing the same level of vitriol around HasLabs for Marvel and Star Wars. If toys and collecting aren't fun, why even do it?"

The reason (for me) is that I adore LEGO. The Daily Bugle was one of the best building experiences and one of my favourite sets of all time. I want that experience to happen again and again, which, at the time I expected it to. Sets like Statue of Liberty Battle, Avengers Tower, X-Mansion, Baxter Building and countless others are no-brainers; like genuinely without even putting any thought in, if you release £300 display buildings with 20 minifigures, the majority of people are going to be delighted (at least, from all the feedback I see online).

So instead of those most-wanted sets that so many people want, this year we've had (at that price point and above) two very divisive display pieces with one (bad) minifigure between them, and it's a missed opportunity in many peoples eyes; that's why people are so emotional about it. They love the toy and they want to recapture the joy of building one of their favourite sets.

Not the mention the increase in LEGO's prices will be forcing a small chunk of people out which is going to upset those individuals and further push away the people on the fence, or another reason to feel baffled for the people who didn't want it anyway.

One last point; I was hopeful when I heard the leaks. If this was a better executed model without the gimmick, had correct colour lighting, better proportions and more accurate, along with a display-style, highly detailed hall of armor (let's say with 5 spots) and five 5 new and/or re-done armors with full body printing, this would have been much better received by all. Those aren't massive tweaks. It's a mishandled project.

I will not be surprised if this goes for 40% off on lego.com like the queer eye and stadium sets

@MainBricker said:
"I think I'll wait for the $1000 UCS Hulkbuster which will be released in a couple of years."

I think I'll wait for one on a human scale ;)

So.... I suppose the huge LOTR set won't be anything cool either. Probably a 2 foot high Gandalf with no minifigs, awkward proportions, tons of holes and gaps, and a head that opens so you can stuff 10280 inside.

The best part... it'll cost $999!

How do they manage to make a 4000 pieces set like 42082, motorized with PF components, in 2018 for 230€ and then, just 4 years later in 2022, a set with the same number of pieces, but with hardly any function at all for 2 times the price, at 550€?

@Gamlebilrokker said:
"Y’all done being obnoxious yet?

130 comments about a 500 Dollar toy that doesn’t fit your fancy, Jesus Christ…"

This is a comments section. It's gonna have comments in it. Sorry if that offends you!

It’s a wasted opportunity. Four thousand pieces that could’ve been used to build Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters or Four Freedom’s Plaza or Avenger’s Mansion or Doctor Doom’s castle or the Hall of Justice or the Watchtower or the Hall of Doom and populated with 25 or 30 minifigs and bigfigs. Then people would be drooling over the set instead of complaining.

Tony Stark's reaction is accurate.