LEGO announces The Little Mermaid sets!
Posted by CapnRex101,
Three sets inspired by The Little Mermaid have been officially revealed, including the stunning 43225 The Little Mermaid Royal Clamshell. The press release follows:
Today the LEGO Group reveals three new sets, inspired by the highly-anticipated film, Disney’s “The Little Mermaid,” hitting theatres nationwide May 26, 2023. It’s time to venture under-the-sea with exciting new LEGO sets full of who’s-its and what’s-its for fans of all ages, including:
The portable LEGO Little Mermaid Story Book set (43213) is suitable for fans aged 5 years and above and features two underwater environments inspired by the film - that can all fold up into a neat book. Firstly, join the Ariel mini-doll in her hideout, along with Sebastian and a collection of her land treasures. On the other side of the book, fans will find an Ursula mini-doll in her leviathan cave complete with potions and mystery. The set also features a Prince Eric mini-doll. Available from LEGO.com, LEGO Stores and select retailers, RRP $19.99 / €19.99 / £17.99 from 1st May 2023.
Build your own treasure collection with the LEGO Ariel’s Treasure Chest (43229), suitable for film-lovers 5 years and older. Once again featuring an Ariel mini-doll, fans can build their own treasure chest, decorate it and fill it with keepsakes in two secret drawers. In fact, there are a few to get you started such as a candlestick, a statue and jewels. You can also turn the key in the lock to make Ariel, Flounder and Sebastian spin – just like a music box. Available from LEGO.com, LEGO Stores and select retailers, RRP $47.99 / €47.99 / £42.99 from 1st May 2023
Not forgetting grown-up fans too, The LEGO Little Mermaid Royal Clamshell (43225) is the perfect play and display piece for LEGO fans. Featuring key moments from the movie, this beautiful build is rich in detail and features seven minifigure characters from the new film, including Ariel, Ursula, King Triton, Sebastian, Flounder, and Ariel’s sisters Indira and Karina. Created for the adult fan, the set includes references to throne rock, Ariel’s grotto and Ursula’s lair. Available to pre-order exclusively at LEGO Stores and LEGO.com/Mermaid from 23rd April 2023 at the recommended retail price of $159.99 / €159.99 / £139.99, and from select retailers from 1st May 2023.
We will be publishing our review of 43225 The Little Mermaid Royal Clamshell quite soon.
Are you looking forward to these sets? Let us know in the comments.
112 likes
133 comments on this article
I mean its not like these sets have been seen and sold physically in stores for weeks..... right?
If the Clamshell warms shelves, I hope the lesson The LEGO Group takes away is that people don't like this specific set, and not that Disney sets with minifigures instead of minidolls don't sell...
Why did it need to be so expensive, I like the minifgures but not enough to warrenty £140, Lego have gone out of their way to try make smaller more affordable and detailed sets for Star Wars, they need to do the same with these
My dear good gosh, the clam one is an absolute beast. Look at the thing!
@BricksAhoy said:
"If the Clamshell warms shelves, I hope the lesson The LEGO Group takes away is that people don't like this specific set, and not that Disney sets with minifigures instead of minidolls don't sell..."
To be honest this feels like a big risk to take to invest so heavily in this one movie with a big D2C set.
I know all of the Disney live-action remakes have (unfortunately) been box office hits, but have they ever moved merchandise the same was as the original animated films have? Especially since it seems likely the original film will within a year or so still be considered the more iconic of the two, it makes me wonder why LEGO wouldn't just release a set based on stuff from the animated film as the D2C stuff and keep the live action film sets focused on the smaller shorter shelf life sets that can capture the immediate attention of the remake's crowd at a smaller price point.
Mind you I am incredibly cynical and worn out about the whole process of Disney necromancing their great animated films into shoddy shambling live action remakes year after year and how general audiences keep biting it hook line and sinker, so I might not be the best person to judge what the demand is for LEGO sets based on those films to be honest.
That box is...$48? That's a weird choice as well as feeling overpriced. Maybe it's larger than I think it is. The clam shell looks alright, but I don't know how it will sell. At least they didn't say anything absurd in the press release for the clam set like "depicting scenes known and loved across the world" since it's not yet known or loved. I don't have any interest in these sets, but hopefully we will some more cheap Disney/Pixar minifig sets like the Up house.
I don't know when
I don't know how
But I know I can't afford these right now
I just want to say to anyone here please don’t be racist.
A microdoll, minidoll and minifig?
They really went all-in huh. A shame the minifig version is so incredibly expensive. Feels a bit like putting the cart before the horse in terms of the popularity for this version.
Was a clam shell the best subject matter here? Don't they have a castle in this version?
But at least we get multiple other mermaids. Let's hope they will be affordable on Bricklink afterwards.
Interesting...? I doubt these will sell well.
Doesn't it look like King Triton's face is part of his hair piece?
"... features seven minifigure characters from the new film, including Ariel, Ursula, King Triton, Sebastian, Flounder, and Ariel’s sisters Indira and Karina."
LEGO usually avoid using the word minifigure when describing characters that don't have any minifigure parts (R2-D2 for example is typically not in the minifigure count but referenced as a droid). Yet here they are using the term minifigure for a crab and fish.
43225 is just a mess. It looks terrible. I wish they had stuck with the classic version of the movie.
What's uh.... what's going on with those two fish in front of Ursula?
It would’ve been nice if they made that clamshell able to open up, and the scene spring into life, similar to the pop-up book Ideas set.
Lego needs to stop with these prices... how many Little Mermaid fans are gonna care enough to spend $50-160 dollars on it?
@Ignore_Me said:
"Lego needs to stop with these prices... how many Little Mermaid fans are gonna care enough to spend $50-160 dollars on it?"
And how many fans are going to drop that much on the remake rather than the original?
@Ridgeheart said:
"Yeah. Boo to this, boo to Disney for changing a story, boo, yuck, bleck. We demand the original!
And by that, I mean I want a green-skinned Ariel who is tasked to assassinate Eric by the sea-witch, so that she can let his blood drip from her dagger onto her feet. We'll also require a transformation-feature, maybe a sliding panel, so we can then transform Ariel into sea-foam when she fails to murder the love of her life. Because when I say 'original', I mean old-school original, the version from 1837.
Just you wait until Disney releases a 'Hunchback of the Notre Dame'-set.
Okay, so - all snark aside - can we for once stop pretending that the version you grew up with, is the one, the true, the only version? These are stories and fairytales that are centuries older than you are. There will always be newer versions for the current and future generations. 300 years from now, there's going to be a version where Ariel gains robot-legs and braves the nuclear wastelands in a Hazmat-suit, just so she can be united with the handsome three-headed supermutant she once caught a glimpse of.
This is not a good look for you."
The main takeaway from this is that Disney will still be a thing in three centuries' time.
Now that is true horror.
@Bri3k_b01 said:
"I just want to say to anyone here please don’t be racist."
Noted.
@Ridgeheart said:
"Yeah. Boo to this, boo to Disney for changing a story, boo, yuck, bleck. We demand the original!
And by that, I mean I want a green-skinned Ariel who is tasked to assassinate Eric by the sea-witch, so that she can let his blood drip from her dagger onto her feet. We'll also require a transformation-feature, maybe a sliding panel, so we can then transform Ariel into sea-foam when she fails to murder the love of her life. Because when I say 'original', I mean old-school original, the version from 1837.
Just you wait until Disney releases a 'Hunchback of the Notre Dame'-set.
Okay, so - all snark aside - can we for once stop pretending that the version you grew up with, is the one, the true, the only version? These are stories and fairytales that are centuries older than you are. There will always be newer versions for the current and future generations. 300 years from now, there's going to be a version where Ariel gains robot-legs and braves the nuclear wastelands in a Hazmat-suit, just so she can be united with the handsome three-headed supermutant she once caught a glimpse of.
This is not a good look for you."
Yes.
However, the remakes haven't exactly innovated much either. At least nothing anyone asked for. They're very, VERY obviously trying to ride the coattails of the original Disney animated version every time. That's the marketing, that's the character designs and the way they're shot. These films are not on par with the other interpretations of these stories because they have nothing new to say by definition.
The remakes are corporate products, at this point not even having the original stories anywhere in the production process anymore.
And when they do make changes they are a mildly more fleshed out version at best, or are a worst shot-for shot remake (Lion King) or clash horribly with the original tales at worst. Like making a Pinoccio where the titular character is a flawless paragon who doesn't need to change and the story is toothless.
@Zoniax said:
"What's uh.... what's going on with those two fish in front of Ursula?"
Staring contest?
@Ridgeheart said:
"Yeah. Boo to this, boo to Disney for changing a story, boo, yuck, bleck. We demand the original!
And by that, I mean I want a green-skinned Ariel who is tasked to assassinate Eric by the sea-witch, so that she can let his blood drip from her dagger onto her feet. We'll also require a transformation-feature, maybe a sliding panel, so we can then transform Ariel into sea-foam when she fails to murder the love of her life. Because when I say 'original', I mean old-school original, the version from 1837.
Just you wait until Disney releases a 'Hunchback of the Notre Dame'-set.
Okay, so - all snark aside - can we for once stop pretending that the version you grew up with, is the one, the true, the only version? These are stories and fairytales that are centuries older than you are. There will always be newer versions for the current and future generations. 300 years from now, there's going to be a version where Ariel gains robot-legs and braves the nuclear wastelands in a Hazmat-suit, just so she can be united with the handsome three-headed supermutant she once caught a glimpse of.
This is not a good look for you."
I think when people refer to the first Disney TLM as the “original”, they’re doing so in the context of Disney movies. People’s issue doesn’t stem from the fact that this is a new take, but that changes are being made that are either arbitrary or make the experience less fun.
For example, Sebastian just being a normal crab instead of a lively, expressive cartoon crab. Just look at the piece they use to represent him in this set.
@Ridgeheart said:
"Okay, so - all snark aside - can we for once stop pretending that the version you grew up with, is the one, the true, the only version? These are stories and fairytales that are centuries older than you are. There will always be newer versions for the current and future generations. "
I have to disagree. While obviously fairy tales are meant to be retold and recycled, nothing of the live action remakes has any serious effort in them to actually reinvent those stories. If I want to see the fairy tales that inspired the Disney animated films revisited I would rather take Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio or Shrek, or anything that approaches the source material with fresh eyes and a genuine love of the material.
Disney's live action remakes are the laziest and most bare minimum of work to retell a story since they know that their nostalgia hungry audience will buy it. Really the only one I excuse from that was 2018's Christopher Robin, but that's because Disney wisely decided to make it a spiritual sequel and not outright plagiarism of the original film. The announcement of a new Moana remake only years after the original film came out shows Disney's willingness to suck all the joy and life from their IP to recycle them again and again.
Not saying Disney can't put out spectacular work when it gives creators with passion for their work power to do it. I would point to both Star Wars' Andor series and James Gunn's Guardians of the Galaxy films (plus holiday special!) as the prime example of "Awesome Things Disney has done lately." But the live action remakes of animated films have to be recognized as bland tepid retreads that only get people working on them because its an easy paycheck.
I would have 100% bought something based on the original animated movie. Who the hell decided this live action crap would be a smart movie to base an adult set on? Especially since most adults I know prefer the animated.
It would have been nice to have a set under $50 with minifigures. Casual fans don’t want to have to shell out $160 to get a minifigure version of Ariel. Die hard fans, sure. But $160 can be used to get all the collectible minifigs AND the Up house… I see better value there.
The clamshell looks cool. I wonder what they could make if they decided to do large sets for the other live-action remakes.
The cave of wonders from Aladdin, for example. Or some cool jungle diorama from the Jungle Book.
@Celldweller said:
"I would have 100% bought something based on the original animated movie. Who the hell decided this live action crap would be a smart movie to base an adult set on? Especially since most adults I know prefer the animated."
There's 43207 : Ariel's Underwater Palace still available based on the cartoon version.
@EtudeTheBadger said:
" @Ridgeheart said:
"Yeah. Boo to this, boo to Disney for changing a story, boo, yuck, bleck. We demand the original!
And by that, I mean I want a green-skinned Ariel who is tasked to assassinate Eric by the sea-witch, so that she can let his blood drip from her dagger onto her feet. We'll also require a transformation-feature, maybe a sliding panel, so we can then transform Ariel into sea-foam when she fails to murder the love of her life. Because when I say 'original', I mean old-school original, the version from 1837.
Just you wait until Disney releases a 'Hunchback of the Notre Dame'-set.
Okay, so - all snark aside - can we for once stop pretending that the version you grew up with, is the one, the true, the only version? These are stories and fairytales that are centuries older than you are. There will always be newer versions for the current and future generations. 300 years from now, there's going to be a version where Ariel gains robot-legs and braves the nuclear wastelands in a Hazmat-suit, just so she can be united with the handsome three-headed supermutant she once caught a glimpse of.
This is not a good look for you."
The main takeaway from this is that Disney will still be a thing in three centuries' time.
Now that is true horror."
Wow. True colors.
None of these are based on The Little Mermaid.
These are just lazy messy sets based on an upcoming bastardisation of both the 1989 Disney Animation Classic and the 1837 tale by Hans Christian Andersen.
That LEGO would even agree to produce OBVIOUS FLOPS like these shows how detached from reality they are. No one wants this. Specially not the massive one.
I can't wait to see these 3 sets massively flop.
Just like the horrid cash-grab remake it's based on.
Look at this stuff
Isn't it neat?
Wouldn't you think my collection's complete?
Wouldn't you think I'm the AFOL
The AFOL who has everything?
not even any printing on "Sebastian"? Rather soulless, like the remake films themselves.
Little hope for that 18+ set, not super desirable and just some random clamshell display which is pretty unique but a big risk for a live action movie
@xboxtravis7992 said:
"To be honest this feels like a big risk to take to invest so heavily in this one movie with a big D2C set.
I know all of the Disney live-action remakes have (unfortunately) been box office hits . . . "
Actually both Dumbo and Mulan bombed. I think it's safe to say Pinocchio would have too if it was a theatrical release like originally planned.
And yeah it does seem very risky. It's like if they released a new D2C Lord of the Rings set based on Rings of Power instead of releasing Rivendell.
Anyways my thoughts are that in the first place I don't see that much demand for a D2C Little Mermaid set, but I guess they must feel there is some. Either way basing it entirely off the remake seems limiting. They should have included the old Ariel, Sebastian and Flounder so people can switch if they want. That way they hit those that want the OG and those that like the remake.
On a side note it also just seems like a weird choice for a D2C set. We've already had Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and Alladin remakes do exceptionally well at the box office and their original animated films were more popular than The Little Mermaid as well. I feel like even with The Little Mermaid remake being a brand new release they would be better off with a D2C of Pride Rock (Lion King), Agrabah Palace (Alladin), or the Castle Ballroom (Beauty and the Beast).
@RobA said:
"not even any printing on "Sebastian"? Rather soulless, like the remake films themselves."
This piece exists in a current set, but it's the cartoon version : https://brickset.com/parts/6380346/crab-on-tube-w-2x3-2-holder-no-3
Now they use the boring basic old 1998 crab here, which is just as basic as the crab in the movie remake.
Definately soulless.
They could have made the clamshell so much smaller and it would have been just as presentable but more affordable. I love what I'm seeing but I hate the price of it. It's a shame they're designing to these absolutely insane price points.
Nobody seems to be mentioning the incredible (relative) value of the large set. £0.07/piece, for Disney!?
@Celldweller said:
"I would have 100% bought something based on the original animated movie. Who the hell decided this live action crap would be a smart movie to base an adult set on? Especially since most adults I know prefer the animated."
How can they prefer the animated when they haven't yet seen the live-action one?
@Brick_Belt said:
" @xboxtravis7992 said:
"To be honest this feels like a big risk to take to invest so heavily in this one movie with a big D2C set.
I know all of the Disney live-action remakes have (unfortunately) been box office hits . . . "
Actually both Dumbo and Mulan bombed. I think it's safe to say Pinocchio would have too if it was a theatrical release like originally planned.
And yeah it does seem very risky. It's like if they released a new D2C Lord of the Rings set based on Rings of Power instead of releasing Rivendell.
Anyways my thoughts are that in the first place I don't see that much demand for a D2C Little Mermaid set, but I guess they must feel there is some. Either way basing it entirely off the remake seems limiting. They should have included the old Ariel, Sebastian and Flounder so people can switch if they want. That way they hit those that want the OG and those that like the remake.
On a side note it also just seems like a weird choice for a D2C set. We've already had Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and Alladin remakes do exceptionally well at the box office and their original animated films were more popular than The Little Mermaid as well. I feel like even with The Little Mermaid remake being a brand new release they would be better off with a D2C of Pride Rock (Lion King), Agrabah Palace (Alladin), or the Castle Ballroom (Beauty and the Beast). "
I think the logic LEGO has is that Little Mermaid stuff has sold like hotcakes ever since the movie came out. I actually think that, minifigures aside, this would be a pretty nice set for a Little Mermaid fan. The environment has a lot of underwater locations from the movies, and you could just swap out Ariel with the classic version of the character from CMF if you'd like. The Princess line of sets also should have a decent number of her animal buddies already made as pieces, too!
@djcbs said:
"None of these are based on The Little Mermaid.
These are just lazy messy sets based on an upcoming bastardisation of both the 1989 Disney Animation Classic and the 1837 tale by Hans Christian Andersen.
That LEGO would even agree to produce OBVIOUS FLOPS like these shows how detached from reality they are. No one wants this. Specially not the massive one.
I can't wait to see these 3 sets massively flop.
Just like the horrid cash-grab remake it's based on."
Your comment is offensive AND factually incorrect. Well done.
These sets are based on the upcoming live action movie The Little Mermaid. That's a fact. The movie exists, it is getting released, and it tells the same basic story of the animated classic. You can't pretend this isn't true. You don't have to like it, you don't have to see it, and you don't have to buy any of the sets.
You call these sets obvious flops, but I think what you mean is "I don't want these sets." Big difference. See, there are OTHER PEOPLE in the world, and they want DIFFERENT things than you do. And that is JUST FINE. There are people who will see this movie, love it, and buy some LEGO sets to remember it.
Stop assuming you're the only LEGO fan in the world. Stop assuming you know everything about LEGO's audience and LEGO's choices to appeal to their audience. It's provincial, backwards, and insulting.
Using the standard crab element for Sebastian makes me want to throw him in the crab cooker from Ninjago city...
The 18+ set is badly designed, and the decision to base it on the yet fo be seen live action version when adults grew up on the animated one is just clueless. Add to the mix the trolls attacking the casting, and my bet this will be sitting next to the fab 5 on the discount area shortly.
I think the clamshell set is rather fun and looks more like a £160 set than the tree house princess thing - I get the mini doll etc aspect, and I do like the mini dolls (and so does my daughter!) but if I was going to spend on a set for her I’d much rather get her the clamshell. Plus I think the Ursula minifigure looks great!
Mummy, daddy, I want the little mermaid palace…
Sorry my dear, you’re not old enough. You can have it when you’re 18+
@JakeyQuinn2014 said:
"Why did it need to be so expensive, I like the minifgures but not enough to warrenty £140, Lego have gone out of their way to try make smaller more affordable and detailed sets for Star Wars, they need to do the same with these
"
Di$ney demands a significant part of the profit of these sets. Enough reason not to buy them imho.
I absolutely love the D2C set, maybe not a day one purchase, but I'm definitely going to get it eventually. There are some great building techniques and the mermaid figures are stunning. I have a huge soft spot for the original animated movie, but oddly enough I'm quite excited about the remake - I think this will be the first Disney live-action remake since Cinderella that I actually want to see.
I love the clamshell set! The minifigs look amazing although I wish we got more than five in a $160 set. Ariel’s sisters have such cool designs in the new movie I would’ve loved to see all of them (or at least more than two) in this set! Can’t wait to get it.
Where s dislike button? This won't sell well.
Disney should hacw stick to their animated original and not change it hala bala...
This Sebastian makes me sad. I know it’s now a crab not a lobster and less cartoony than the animated film. But that’s just the generic crab part. So joyless. It’s more drab and depressing than the empty, black, adult-themed box art. This should come with a prescription for Zoloft as a GWP.
Oh wow. The clamshell is quite a display piece. Fun build, it looks like. This theme was a surprise. There's a boring fish w stripes in the sets. I certainly hope it's not Flounder?!
I think it'll do as well as the giant Black Panther bust.
Here’s an interesting thing I noticed that I didn’t see any discussion on. The mini doll set comes with a dots bracelet. I wonder if that was just planned prior to dots being cancelled, or if we will see the bracelets and little photo frame/jewelry box builds live on as accessories where deemed appropriate in future sets like this?
It's disappointing that the 18+ is based off of the remake (that is targeted at under 12s) and not the classic animated film that people over 18 will have watched.
The live-action like all of Disney live-action remakes will be forgotten in about one year.
@Ridgeheart said:
"And by that, I mean I want a green-skinned Ariel who is tasked to assassinate Eric by the sea-witch, so that she can let his blood drip from her dagger onto her feet. We'll also require a transformation-feature, maybe a sliding panel, so we can then transform Ariel into sea-foam when she fails to murder the love of her life. Because when I say 'original', I mean old-school original, the version from 1837.]
The live action film is a remake of the Disney film, featuring many elements of the classic Disney film.
It is not an original live action film based purely the Hans Christian Andersen story. There have been many of these already (not made by Disney), but this is a film based on the Disney-fied version."
About the set, Nice build but skip.
Likely a bit expensive for the kids and the reboot it's based on might not charm adults.
@560heliport said:
" @Celldweller said:
"I would have 100% bought something based on the original animated movie. Who the hell decided this live action crap would be a smart movie to base an adult set on? Especially since most adults I know prefer the animated."
How can they prefer the animated when they haven't yet seen the live-action one?"
The rebooting of a classic movie is already a pain since you either copy paste the script or to much is changed
For example I dropped ben-hur after watching it for 10 minutes for not liking the change.
But if you also try to:
-including diversity
-Doing live-action
Sorry all nostagia viewers now left the building.
I believe the clamshell is the set which was rumoured some months ago to be Ariel’s Palace. If it really had been the palace from the animated version I would’ve happily spent £300 on that. Now it has morphed into a giant clamshell from the remake it is if no interest to me.
As several have said, a Disney set for adults needs to tap into nostalgia, so it needs to be from the original, not a remake which hasn’t even opened yet.
I'm only disappointed that this magnificent underwater theme build wasn't for the DC Aquaman film.
I'm a little tempted to get43213 for the Ariel and Ursula microdolls, and some of the parts.
@jasontheafrican said:
"Casual fans don’t want to have to shell out $160 to get a minifigure version of Ariel."
71012-18 exists if that's all you want.
@Darth_Dee: "Les poissons, les poissons..."
I see very little here that interests me. There’s the Otto hair limpets, the magenta fish, maybe Ursula’s hair, and that’s about it. Flounder looks nice enough, but Sebastian is just a standard unprinted red crab?
@xboxtravis7992:
I own copies of both Maleficent films because they had such an interesting alternate take on the original film. I haven’t even watched any of the others because they just look like the animated film repackaged in live-action form.
@Ridgeheart:
Futurama already did the “fish with robot legs” thing, so that’s not going to happen for over 976 years.
@CCC:
Good catch. Maybe stating it as “minifigure characters” gives them the legal CYA they need to include obviously-not-minifigures. The point of the distinction is, of course, to preserve their trademark on the minifig. Stray too far from the core design, and they have to call it something else or risk having a judge call them out for trying to be too expansive with their trademark.
Is that pink fish a new fish colour?
It would be cool if the clamshell was close-able like a pop up book.
@Lego_lord said:
"Oh great it's the woke version. No thanks."
White are people so upset?
5 minifigures, not seven. It is straight up deception to call the flounder and Sebastian included minifigs.
These comments are about to be locked, but I will say that the unfortunate thing is these Lego sets are getting criticism for issues with modern Disney and not the sets themselves.
For example I prefer all cartoon versions over their remakes, but it has nothing with the cultural issues people seem to want to dive into.
Let’s take Beauty and the Beast. Pretty straightforward remake. Some great new songs, a pretty good movie. But I still like the cartoon a lot more. Why? The beast is an amazing compelling character that is hard to portray in the same way when limited to “live action”.
@xboxtravis7992:
Maleficent most certainly did have something new to say, hence why it switched focus to the little-seen villain of the original animated feature. They had a very different take on the story, and chose to do it in live-action rather than animation. Everything that followed* is basically just retreading the same ground as the animation its based on. Pacing is a little different, and the scenery has gone through some changes in the meantime, but by and large it's still the same journey. Heck, The Lion King isn't even a live-action remake! Every character is CGI animation!
*Maleficent 2 doesn't count, because it's not a remake of anything.
@jasontheafrican:
The animated Ariel already got a regular minifig release with 71012-18. While not as cheap as MSRP, they can be purchased at a fairly reasonable aftermarket price. The new Ariel will probably cost quite a bit more on Bricklink as the clamshell set gets parted out, but certainly should be available for a lot less than the set as a whole. That's not to say that you're wrong. TLG does have an awkward disconnect with their customer base at times, which has resulted in many choices being tempered by an abundance of caution. But the truth is, all the fans who secondguess their decisions have track records that are just as spotty, calling out stuff that "nobody wants", which go on to become smash successes, or demaning flops be revived because it's "what everyone wants".
@Brick_Belt:
That's unlikely to ever happen, though, because they have the license for WB's film series, not Amazon's streaming series. In this case, both are Disney, so it's easy enough to add a page to the contract.
@TeriXeri:
Cartoon-Sebastian will have the last laugh, as live-action-Sebastian won't even get its own listing on Bricklink. It'll just be Crab, Red.
@Darth_Dee:
One of the best meals I had in Alaska was snow crab.
@OttoT said:
"Di$ney demands a significant part of the profit of these sets."
Prove it.
@MrKoshka:
Um...Sebastian was never a lobster.
@gunther_schnitzel:
Yes, one of the fish is a new color. I beleive it's magenta, maybe dark-pink.
I'm certainly not in the target audience for any of these sets, but I have to say 43225 The Little Mermaid Royal Clamshell looks absolutely amazing!
@djcbs said:
"None of these are based on The Little Mermaid.
These are just lazy messy sets based on an upcoming bastardisation of both the 1989 Disney Animation Classic and the 1837 tale by Hans Christian Andersen.
That LEGO would even agree to produce OBVIOUS FLOPS like these shows how detached from reality they are. No one wants this. Specially not the massive one.
I can't wait to see these 3 sets massively flop.
Just like the horrid cash-grab remake it's based on."
It is probably best for you to avoid watching the movie and instead of getting worked up about these sets, purchase some of the other 100s of other sets LEGO release this year.
This is not the Little Mermaid
@PurpleDave, personally I did not really get into Maleficent (or Cruella for that matter) since I am not the biggest fan of "villain turned to anti-hero like Wicked (but without Wicked's music)" stories myself; but you are not wrong in that as far as trying to do something original with the IP those films do count as well. I also have strong memories of the Glenn Close version of Cruella in 102 Dalmatians that gets baked into a cake, 102 Dalmatians is a stupid film and not that great but reruns on Disney Channel with the comic absurdity of that cake baking scene made it forever burned into my mind (and it predates the "modern" live action remake trend by a fair bit, Disney wasn't as frequent with their live action remakes back then).
Speaking of obscure live action Disney remakes, anybody else vaguely remember the ABC "Made for TV" Pinocchio remake starring Drew Carey as Gepetto? THAT is the most late-90s/early-00's Disney remake I can imagine. That's a callback to the past.
@xboxtravis7992:
I _didn't_ remember the Drew Carey Pinocchio, but I do remember that I watched it. All I remember of it, though, is a shot of Carey-as-Geppetto smiling in closeup. (I'm pretty sure that was featured in every trailer they released.
I have to admit I don't like remakes, live action or otherwise.
I loved the original animated movies (Jungle Book, Lion King, Pinocchio, The Little Mermaid), didn't care for the live action versions. Mulan I didn't even like the original, so didn't bother with the remake to begin with.
These sets leave me uninterested.
I'm building Ilu Discovery from LEGO Avatar, I stare across my desk and the coral platform has the exact fish configuration just below Ariel, down to the Spring Yellowish Green color. Huh.
The clamshell looks good. It's not for me but it looks like a nice-looking set.
I'm surprised it's sub-$200 with the way LEGO has been trending with licensed sets.
It looks good, but I just don’t know how well it will sell, especially since it’s based on the remake that people may not have much interest one.
And obviously I haven’t seen the movie, but Ursula looks small.
That shell is such bad dissplay piece. Its just ugly
I might buy the clamshell for the parts if/when it gets the 40% or more discount. Zero interest in the minidoll storybook set or the treasure chest with that awful not a skirt piece. I just want the magenta grass pieces from the storybook so hopefully they'll show up on PAB someday.
@cfenton said:
"Look at this stuff
Isn't it neat?
Wouldn't you think my collection's complete?
Wouldn't you think I'm the AFOL
The AFOL who has everything?"
Great, now THAT is stuck in my head.
@CaptainRogers said:
"I think it'll do as well as the giant Black Panther bust."
Hilariously I noticed that's sitting in stock at 40% off on Lego's own website. I've never seen that happen before with a D2C set.
I do think this has a leg up on that one though. This one is at least fairly visually pleasing even as someone who isn't crazy about the film, and it isn't obscenely priced.
@AustinPowers:
I got a copy of The Complete Works of Rudyard Kipling as a child, and I've seen all three Disney theatrical films. At best, their original animated film is loosely inspired by a short synopsis of the Mowgli stories. With each release, they've gotten closer to producing a faithful adaptation, but to my mind, the only good adaptations of The Jungle Book were two TV movies released in 1975, called The White Seal and Rikki-Tikki-Tavi.
@Brick_Belt said:
" @CaptainRogers said:
"I think it'll do as well as the giant Black Panther bust."
Hilariously I noticed that's sitting in stock at 40% off on Lego's own website. I've never seen that happen before with a D2C set."
Must be doing better over here. Only 20% off. Spice Girls are 50% off though!
@Zink said:
"People are so hung up on it being based on the new movie. Would anyone seriously shell out 160 bucks for this ugly mess with no functions or playability if it were based on a children's movie from 35 years ago rather than a children's movie from tomorrow? The only thing that would change, is that the figures would look even more bland."
I think the point is more that if it was based on the animated version it would be a different set and probably look a lot better.
@AustinPowers said:
"I have to admit I don't like remakes, live action or otherwise. "
None at all? I enjoyed the live action remakes of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit much more than the old animations.
I think they should have included minifigs from both the classic movie and the live action one to give people a choice of how they want it. Less negativity and more sales. And the $160us price actually seems quite reasonable to me. I was expecting it to be dearer.
@CCC said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"I have to admit I don't like remakes, live action or otherwise. "
None at all? I enjoyed the live action remakes of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit much more than the old animations."
Peter Jackson's LOTR and Hobbit trilogies are not remakes. They are different adaptations of Tolkien's novels that just so happened to be made after the animated ones of the 1970s. Jackson and co. were not remaking those animated films into a separate medium but adapting the text on their own into a newer version.
This new Little Mermaid is a remake of an older film as it is reimagining an original movie in a different way. (You could argue they are adaptations but that point is so weak in comparing them to Hans Christian Andersen.)
So, if someone decided to redo Back to the Future, it would be a remake as it is based off of an original film. If someone made another Christmas Carol based of the original text, it would be yet another adaptation. A book can have countless adaptations but a film can only be remade. There are obvious exceptions to the rule where overlap happens but yeah.
@CCC:
The Hobbit and Return of the King were Rankin/Bass. The Lord of the Rings (covering the first two books of the trilogy) was United Artists. The Peter Jackson films are all New Line Cinema under Warner Brothers. I wouldn't really call them remakes of the earlier attempts. Besides, the specific discussion here is Disney doing live-action remakes based directly on their earlier animated films, not going back to the root source of those films. Costuming and character designs are even pulled directly from the animated features.
It's so weird ro make an 18+ set based on one of these remakes. I feel like most adults would prefer it to not be based on the soulless cashgrab remake.
@gatorbug6 said:
" @CCC said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"I have to admit I don't like remakes, live action or otherwise. "
None at all? I enjoyed the live action remakes of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit much more than the old animations."
Peter Jackson's LOTR and Hobbit trilogies are not remakes. They are different adaptations of Tolkien's novels that just so happened to be made after the animated ones of the 1970s. Jackson and co. were not remaking those animated films into a separate medium but adapting the text on their own into a newer version.
This new Little Mermaid is a remake of an older film as it is reimagining an original movie in a different way. (You could argue they are adaptations but that point is so weak in comparing them to Hans Christian Andersen.)
So, if someone decided to redo Back to the Future, it would be a remake as it is based off of an original film. If someone made another Christmas Carol based of the original text, it would be yet another adaptation. A book can have countless adaptations but a film can only be remade. There are obvious exceptions to the rule where overlap happens but yeah."
RE Back to the Future: If they ever do a BTTF remake / reboot / sequel / prequel, I wouldn't know what to do / feel. (Certainly nothing happy, that's for sure.) I just hope Hollywood doesn't get any funny ideas!
@Goujon said:
"I mean its not like these sets have been seen and sold physically in stores for weeks..... right?"
Oh so it's not worth announcing them for the people who haven't seen them in stores? I've literally never seen these before, even on *hashtage* legoleaks
@gatorbug6:
@Murdoch17:
If anyone actually does decide to remake BttF, they're going to run into a problem. The two Bobs had it written into both of their contracts that any further expansion of the BttF franchise requires both of them to sign off on it. Once they die, that right passes on to their respective estates. So there's basically the film trilogy, the animated series, the theme park ride, and a short film that was produced for one of the home video releases. Off the top of my head, that's it.
And @gatorbug6, films can absolutely be adapted. They used to regularly be adapted by way of novelizations. A few have been adapted for stage, or graphic novels. But I would agree on the film-to-film transition, and to a lesser extent on film-to-TV.
The way the descriptions keep saying “includes Sebastian”, is there something different about the mould used for him? He just looks like a normal crab piece to me…
@Murdoch17 said:
"RE Back to the Future: If they ever do a BTTF remake / reboot / sequel / prequel, I wouldn't know what to do / feel. (Certainly nothing happy, that's for sure.) I just hope Hollywood doesn't get any funny ideas!"
The Telltale video game from a few years back was honestly pretty fun. Felt like it could have been "Back to the Future IV" in a different world, and it has Michael Fox providing a few cameos as various members of the McFly family in it as well.
@Brickalili said:
"The way the descriptions keep saying “includes Sebastian”, is there something different about the mould used for him? He just looks like a normal crab piece to me…"
And that is _precisely_ what's different about him. Every previous Little Mermaid set that has included that character used a custom molded version based on the animated film. Flounder just looks like a redeco of the mold that was based on the animated film.
I want Creator Expert back. The ICONS rebranding feels like an excuse to bring more licenced one off sets.
It’s good/bad to see racism is not exclusive to the U.S.
The sets look okay. They're not for me.
@p_galahad said:
" @Bri3k_b01 said:
"I just want to say to anyone here please don’t be racist."
You mean like the remake being racist, replacing white characters?"
False narrative baiting. Stop it. Talk Legos. I really like the minis. And you know who is estatic about this, my daughters. You know....a demographic that Disney and Lego appeal to. Adult cry babies aren't who they are trying to sell to.
The D2C set honestly looks marvelous, but I will echo the sentiment that making an 18+ set off of an unproven live-action remake is weird. Most black-box 18+ sets based on IP are derived from established properties that have experienced notable success; this feels like if they made a $160 Prince of Persia set in 2010. Sure, it's based on an adaptation of pre-existing material, but it feels like jumping the gun.
That said, the minifigures look really good all-around in their own right outside of the context of the upcoming movie, especially Ursula.
@VoidSeeker said:
"I want Creator Expert back. The ICONS rebranding feels like an excuse to bring more licenced one off sets."
There's no Icons branding on this set box though, unlike 10316: The Lord of the Rings: Rivendell , and other sets where it's on the bottom left corner of the box.
@CCC said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"I have to admit I don't like remakes, live action or otherwise. "
None at all? I enjoyed the live action remakes of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit much more than the old animations."
What the others already said.
We're talking about something completely different here.
The boxart is strange, it looks like a bootleg.
I have about as much interest in these sets as the remake itself. Which is none. After the disastrous Mulan, I’ve made a pledge to watch no more live-action remakes from Disney and it’s going pretty well so far.
Besides, is anyone still talking about the remakes of The Lion King, Mulan and Beauty and the Beast as much as the originals? Heck, the Lion King is currently the ninth highest grossing film of all time but is almost never bought up in regular conversation. I doubt these sets, particularly the clam, will sell particularly well.
@MrKoshka said:
"Here’s an interesting thing I noticed that I didn’t see any discussion on. The mini doll set comes with a dots bracelet. I wonder if that was just planned prior to dots being cancelled, or if we will see the bracelets and little photo frame/jewelry box builds live on as accessories where deemed appropriate in future sets like this?"
LEGO did say that elements of the DOTS theme would stick around, and it just decided not to stick DOTS branding on this, I guess?
EDIT: So that means LEGO hopes it'll sell until next year then.
Visually this set is a hot mess. I'd love to get those minifigs though, and I'm not even a disney fan.
@TheOtherMike and @PurpleDave
I already own the 71012-18 , so the comment I made was not meant for me. I moreso worry about those who will go to watch the movie and want either the old or new version of Ariel, but either don’t have that kind of money or are not aware of good ways to get minifigures (like Bricklink) and have to resort to more expensive means (like eBay). Casual Lego fans are not as aware of resources like AFOLs are. For me, Lego is expensive and I can’t buy every set I want because I have to make adult decisions like paying rent and getting food. Buying Lego is therefore somewhat of a luxury and I have to carefully consider my options. I just wish The Lego Group would consider that when making sets. Many fans would appreciate at least one set in a theme like this to be under the $50 mark because it is more affordable in their budget. Personally, I like the clamshell set, but it’s not in my budget.
Side note, this thread is an excellent barometer to test out the new ‘Hide comments on news articles posted by this user’ feature!
@jasontheafrican:
"This set is too expensive for me to afford, so they never should have made it," is utter hogwash. "This set is too expensive for me to afford, so they should have also made something at a lower price point," is an opinion I can respect. And yeah, general public isn't going to have access to the same resources as AFOLs. There isn't anything I can do about that. I can, however, try to point a single individual in a direction they may not have considered.
As for me, I see what looks like a well-designed and complex set, but I'm not interested in buying any Little Mermaid sets, regardless of which film they're based on. I did buy a few copies of the Ursula minifig, but only for parts.
The clam looks awful. All the transparent pieces look awful. The whole thing is so busy looking. Slightly better than the Black Panther helmet set though.
Little Mermaid Royal Clamshell looks bad!!! A mes of pieces without purpose. Kids will love it, but hey! It is not made for kids)
@shedjed said:
" @p_galahad said:
" @Bri3k_b01 said:
"I just want to say to anyone here please don’t be racist."
You mean like the remake being racist, replacing white characters?"
False narrative baiting. Stop it. Talk Legos. I really like the minis. And you know who is estatic about this, my daughters. You know....a demographic that Disney and Lego appeal to. Adult cry babies aren't who they are trying to sell to."
While I agree with the sentiment, check the age on the box. They are trying to sell the big set to adults.
@Zink said:
"People are so hung up on it being based on the new movie. Would anyone seriously shell out 160 bucks for this ugly mess with no functions or playability if it were based on a children's movie from 35 years ago rather than a children's movie from tomorrow? The only thing that would change, is that the figures would look even more bland."
Err, this is pretty much all of Lego Ideas. Big sets based off of children's films from 35 years ago.
@Bri3k_b01 said: "I just want to say to anyone here please don’t be racist"
What do you mean - as in "I sure won't tolerate any lavender people in MY city" or "People with their hair, beard and face molded in one piece are degenerate"?
@xboxtravis7992 said:
" @BricksAhoy said:
"If the Clamshell warms shelves, I hope the lesson The LEGO Group takes away is that people don't like this specific set, and not that Disney sets with minifigures instead of minidolls don't sell..."
To be honest this feels like a big risk to take to invest so heavily in this one movie with a big D2C set.
I know all of the Disney live-action remakes have (unfortunately) been box office hits, but have they ever moved merchandise the same was as the original animated films have? Especially since it seems likely the original film will within a year or so still be considered the more iconic of the two, it makes me wonder why LEGO wouldn't just release a set based on stuff from the animated film as the D2C stuff and keep the live action film sets focused on the smaller shorter shelf life sets that can capture the immediate attention of the remake's crowd at a smaller price point.
Mind you I am incredibly cynical and worn out about the whole process of Disney necromancing their great animated films into shoddy shambling live action remakes year after year and how general audiences keep biting it hook line and sinker, so I might not be the best person to judge what the demand is for LEGO sets based on those films to be honest. "
Specially since it seems audiences might not be too interested in this film.
@Ridgeheart said:
" As far as live-action remakes of movies, I gotta say, I still have a soft spot for 'Hook' and by and large, most of the MCU (which is basically ALL live-action remake). So you know, sometimes a remake really works, sometimes it really doesn't.
It depends. And sometimes what it depends upon is an unreliable narrator and/or an unreliable audience. Fortunately, I am both. Or AM I?"
I think you're confused over what constitutes a new adaptation and what is a remake. MCU are film adaptations of comic books.
Hook wasn't a remake, it was a new adaptation of the book.
43225 reminds me of a painting, no painting in particular, but as a 3D representation of a painting that depicts a scene with various things going on. I like stuff like that where there's the overall obvious theme and then the little details when you really examine it. I try to do that sort of thing with my LEGO city, adding in little elements that some people would overlook but a careful observer would appreciate. I would like more black women in my LEGO city, especially with smiling faces, but... price point on that set is a bit too high just for minifigs (but not like that has ever really stopped me before) but but... it's only $159.99. Oh decisions, decisions.
“…three new sets, inspired by the highly-anticipated film, Disney’s The Little Mermaid”
Based on how the trailers have been received,
I think “highly-anticipated” might not be entirely accurate!!
@Minifig_Jez:
Hard to tell at this point. Naysayers can be extremely vocal, but in the end they only control the purchase of one ticket each. You can't drain their box office by not watching the film. Bad word-of-mouth from friends, family, and coworkers will have more of a damaging effect than boycotts are likely to.
I don't care which verson of the Little Mermaid it's based on. There's no excuse for it looking so messy and ugly. It looks novice-built and clumsy. Baffled they've just used a regular run of the mill crab piece- at least colour the eyes or give it a unique quality.
The coloured fish everywhere on transparent rods look hideous. Ive been wishing they'd develop a new fish mould for a long time now.
@KittyBricks12 said:
"Doesn't it look like King Triton's face is part of his hair piece?"
It looks like it is reused from the minidoll of Triton in 43207.
@ItisNoe said:
"My dear good gosh, the clam one is an absolute beast. Look at the thing!"
It's definitely a giant clam. Impressed with the idea, design, nice figs, and that it's not requiring too many clams for purchase.
A flock of adult males complaining about the authenticity of a Little Mermaid toy, welcome to 2023.
@StyleCounselor:
Technically, I think it's a giant scallop.
@PurpleDave said:
" @gatorbug6:
@Murdoch17:
If anyone actually does decide to remake BttF, they're going to run into a problem. The two Bobs had it written into both of their contracts that any further expansion of the BttF franchise requires both of them to sign off on it. Once they die, that right passes on to their respective estates. So there's basically the film trilogy, the animated series, the theme park ride, and a short film that was produced for one of the home video releases. Off the top of my head, that's it.
And @gatorbug6, films can absolutely be adapted. They used to regularly be adapted by way of novelizations. A few have been adapted for stage, or graphic novels. But I would agree on the film-to-film transition, and to a lesser extent on film-to-TV."
Yeah, I meant pertaining to adapting a film into the same medium. Many films are adapted to stage plays or musicals like Shrek and The Producers. A fun example is the classic 1931 Bela Lugosi Dracula which is not a film adaptation of the 1897 Stoker novel but rather a film adaptation of the 1924 stage play... which is an adaptation of the 1897 novel. So, it is a film adaptation of play that is an adaptation of a book.
@gatorbug6:
A weird one is The Producers, which was a feature film that was adapted to a stage musical that was adapted to a second feature film.
@PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor:
Technically, I think it's a giant scallop."
Giant clams have scalloped ridges. Scallop shell have ridges that are closer together.
@StyleCounselor:
Ah, right. I usually think of clams (smooth and round), scallops (ridged and round), and oysters (lumpy and assymetrical) by their basic shell types. I forget sometimes that the Giant Clam exists. I’m not sure if I’ve even seen one in person. If I have, it was probably at the Aquarium of the Pacific.
@Ridgeheart:
As king of the ocean, is there really any place she can hang out that’s _not_ Triton’s basement? She’d get chased out of his castle, for sure.
@Ridgeheart:
So Ursula lives in the sub-basement? Well, if she’s always traipsing through to raid the fridge while Triton’s trying to put the moves on his woman, no wonder they don’t get along…
@dtobin123 said:
"A flock of adult males complaining about the authenticity of a Little Mermaid toy, welcome to 2023. "
User goes on website about toys aimed at adults and finds adults talking about said products and complains about it. Welcome to 2023.
I'm just passing by as I have no interest in these sets, but I just wanted to say that Disney's live-action remake of "The jungle Book" was absolutely fantastic. The others have been mediocre retreads at best.
The clamshell is... baffling? It's not for kids who watch the new movie and I feel most adults would prefer something based on the original.
@StolenEyes said:
"I'm just passing by as I have no interest in these sets, but I just wanted to say that Disney's live-action remake of "The jungle Book" was absolutely fantastic. The others have been mediocre retreads at best. "
Which version? They did two live-action films. Technically, three, as one got a sequel.
@MegaBlocks said:
" @Ridgeheart said:
" As far as live-action remakes of movies, I gotta say, I still have a soft spot for 'Hook' and by and large, most of the MCU (which is basically ALL live-action remake). So you know, sometimes a remake really works, sometimes it really doesn't.
It depends. And sometimes what it depends upon is an unreliable narrator and/or an unreliable audience. Fortunately, I am both. Or AM I?"
I think you're confused over what constitutes a new adaptation and what is a remake. MCU are film adaptations of comic books.
Hook wasn't a remake, it was a new adaptation of the book."
Wasn't Hook actually a sequel to the original Peter Pan story, rather than an adaptation or remake of anything that we'd read or seen before?
The MCU movies use Marvel comics as inspiration, but usually they are neither remakes nor adaptations. For example, the Infinity Saga takes elements from the comics, but without the Silver Surfer or Adam Warlock, it's a completely different beast.
I don’t love any of these…most aren’t for me, anyway… However, the Clamshell will be obtained, when it goes on sale, as I’l “need” the minis, for my collection.
Hmm.. Still annoyed they went with different coloured halves on the books. Not sure if my wife will want them for her collection. (This on and the Peter Pan one.)
Hard pass on this "remake" film set.
@hawkeye7269 said:
" @djcbs said:
"None of these are based on The Little Mermaid.
These are just lazy messy sets based on an upcoming bastardisation of both the 1989 Disney Animation Classic and the 1837 tale by Hans Christian Andersen.
That LEGO would even agree to produce OBVIOUS FLOPS like these shows how detached from reality they are. No one wants this. Specially not the massive one.
I can't wait to see these 3 sets massively flop.
Just like the horrid cash-grab remake it's based on."
Your comment is offensive AND factually incorrect. Well done.
These sets are based on the upcoming live action movie The Little Mermaid. That's a fact. The movie exists, it is getting released, and it tells the same basic story of the animated classic. You can't pretend this isn't true. You don't have to like it, you don't have to see it, and you don't have to buy any of the sets.
You call these sets obvious flops, but I think what you mean is "I don't want these sets." Big difference. See, there are OTHER PEOPLE in the world, and they want DIFFERENT things than you do. And that is JUST FINE. There are people who will see this movie, love it, and buy some LEGO sets to remember it.
Stop assuming you're the only LEGO fan in the world. Stop assuming you know everything about LEGO's audience and LEGO's choices to appeal to their audience. It's provincial, backwards, and insulting."
"offensive"...to whom? That seems like a YOU problem. I couldn't care less if you feel personally offended by my opinion.
My comment is factually correct. Here's why:
"These sets are based on the upcoming live action movie The Little Mermaid. That's a fact. The movie exists, it is getting released, and it tells the same basic story of the animated classic. You can't pretend this isn't true. You don't have to like it, you don't have to see it, and you don't have to buy any of the sets."
False. It's a live-action bastardisation of the 1989 as I said.
It's NOT the same characters and the story is NOT the same. The bloody actors and Alan Menken have said as much. They rewritten lyrics, they've changed plot points, they've added characters, they've changed the motivations of "Ariel" and even the ending was changed.
I don't need to pretend anything. What Disney is putting out is "The Little Mermaid" only in title. Nothing else. Just like that garbage "Peter Pan and Wendy" remake that just massively flopped on Disney+.
"You call these sets obvious flops, but I think what you mean is "I don't want these sets." Big difference. See, there are OTHER PEOPLE in the world, and they want DIFFERENT things than you do. And that is JUST FINE. There are people who will see this movie, love it, and buy some LEGO sets to remember it. "
You don't seem to understand what a flop is.
A flop isn't just something no one buys. A flop is something that doesn't perform according to the expectations. Which is exactly what these sets will be, just like last year's Black Panther Bust, Football Table, Hulkbuster, etc. I'm sure there are a handful of Disney-shills who will go watch that bastardisation and will buy the set. That doesn't mean they will be enough to make these sets not a flop.
"Stop assuming you're the only LEGO fan in the world. Stop assuming you know everything about LEGO's audience and LEGO's choices to appeal to their audience. It's provincial, backwards, and insulting."
I didn't assume anything. Unlike you, I'm not living under a rock. I've seen public reception to this upcoming bastardisation of a Disney classic. And guess what? Consumer reaction IS very indicative of how merchandise will perform. If you think just because you like this upcoming monstrosity everyone else will too, then it seems to be you who are assuming you're the only LEGO fan in the World.
The facts remain: The remake will be a deserved flop. And so will all merchandise related to it, including this overpriced set.
If that insults you, well, boo-hoo. Complain to someone who cares.