The article has the prices as $399.99 / €399.99 / £344.99 but the actual set page has them as £399.99 / $399.99 / 344.99€. I presume the set page is correct as £399.99 exchanges at around €343?

Is it confirmed the 100 years celebration is only with this set? Was holding off on some of the other Disney 100 sets for it.

Impressive from the front, I will look forward to seeing it in person.

I have a question? Does the Lego Ideas Hocus Pocus set count as well for the GWP.

I knew this was coming so sold off the original last week. Glad I did as this much nicer. Minifigs are crap in the new one though.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @sjr60 said:
"This looks excellent, but I'm not sure it's quite excellent enough to replace the original (which I haven't got around to unboxing yet!). Pretty decent price though, so we shall see!"

Hmm, yeah. I'm in the same boat, and thinking the same thing."
Tempted, as prices being asked on Bricklink for new/sealed are still well above the original retail. I would guess that that will drop a bit now the new one's been officially announced though.

Amazing and beautiful. Looks to be a very fun build. It's nice to get some male counterparts to the princesses. I like the comment made by @dawid regarding perhaps a set of a different Disney castle, like that of the original in Anaheim or in Paris.

“The new Disney Castle set is a homage to the iconic castle at the beginning of all Disney movies.”

The movie castle is a combination of Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella Castle, with some bits added in. It’s quite different to what’s in Orlando and Tokyo.

The rear seems almost identical to the first, but the walls are much improved, particularly what were ugly round turret sections, which I’ve always wanted to mod on mine.

I have no interest in the castle, but a couple of the male torsos and legs look good and generic enough not to look like Disney cartoons if used in isolation.

Flynn Rider should probably look a bit more scruffy, as is he looks like Lin Manuel Miranda as Hamilton. Also, Snow White's Prince Florean is missing his lipstick!

Many months ago, there was a rumour that Lego would be getting a new Disney Castle. Many expected the Disneyland Resort of Disneyland Paris castle, but as time went on, we found via Promobricks and Brick Clicker YT that this would be a remake of the 2016 castle.
It looks fantastic with the rose-gold accents on the exterior, and the additional gold with fireworks. Good to see a wider selection of minifigures that are different from the Collectible Minifig Series.
I'll get this set eventually.

This is an exceptional castle (minus the medium nougat - prefer the original neutral tone for that section). However, it does seem weird to have a Disney Castle without a Mickey and Minnie, unless you count the GWP.

@Kev17 said:
"The article has the prices as $399.99 / €399.99 / £344.99 but the actual set page has them as £399.99 / $399.99 / 344.99€. I presume the set page is correct as £399.99 exchanges at around €343?"
For me the actual set page shows 399.99 Euro.
Which makes sense, because at 344.99 Euro it would have been cheaper than the old one even though it has more pieces and would be expected to be more expensive due to inflation alone.

In any case, I like the look of the new one more than the old one I have got, but I don't plan on upgrading. One huge Disney Castle in the home is plenty. Plus the kids now are out of Disney age, so don't care anymore. Perhaps I'll even just sell it off to make room for something else.

@AustinPowers said:
" @Kev17 said:
"The article has the prices as $399.99 / €399.99 / £344.99 but the actual set page has them as £399.99 / $399.99 / 344.99€. I presume the set page is correct as £399.99 exchanges at around €343?"
For me the actual set page shows 399.99 Euro.
Which makes sense, because at 344.99 Euro it would have been cheaper than the old one even though it has more pieces and would be expected to be more expensive due to inflation alone.

In any case, I like the look of the new one more than the old one I have got, but I don't plan on upgrading. One huge Disney Castle in the home is plenty. Plus the kids now are out of Disney age, so don't care anymore. Perhaps I'll even just sell it off to make room for something else. "

Yeah looks like they have updated the set page

It looks great to me, detailed enough, very tall, with the colour scheme true to the original. I don't have the space or the funds for this, but I really like it. I would love to see it in some medieval lego diorama with forestmen et all. It might look a lot less Disney in such context.

@CliveyB said:
"Looks amazing, and very pretty.

But where are all the shops that are situated beneath it that should be selling Disney merchandise and tat?

"

The only shop that is actually in the castle itself is the Bibidi Babidi Boutique, where kids can go and get a royal makeover to look like a princess. Plus the Cinderellas Royal Table restaurant on the 2nd floor.

Like others, I do really like this, and think it’s more colorful than the original, but not enough so for me to get, since I have the original. Plus I don’t know where to put it. That’s the real conundrum these days, space.

@Adamskibrick said:
" @dawid said:
"Would’ve been better if they released a different castle: either the Disneyland Paris or the Disneyland Anaheim, so people that already have the previous castle don’t feel left out"

Pretty sure given that its just called "Disney Castle" its supposed to resemble the castle in the Disney Intro before movies as opposed to the WDW Cinderella castle.

Also wish they'd included Belle and Beast in this set. The minifigs are great, dont get me wrong. I have a feeling they will perhaps suddenly appear in their own, extortionatley priced set later on. "

The castle in the movie intro is really a combination of the Disney World/Cinderella and Disneyland/Sleeping Beauty castles. This set, like the 2016 one, actually are representations of the Cinderella one in Disney World. But, since they both are celebrating Disney and not a specific character, it makes sense to just call it Disney castle.

Really hope the gold pieces are all drum lacquered!

Damn it looks really good. I did not buy the first because of its average design but I think I will get this new one.

I wasn't a fan of the older castle when seeing it in person at my bricks & minifigs so I passed on it. This looks much more to my liking & has that magic feel to it tbh. Will mostly likely get towards the holidays when the big promos come around. Where is my Belle & Beast tho..?

They took out the cool mosiac floor in the original and replaced it with a dance play feature. That's a bummer because that was the best feature of the old castle.

If this is the logo castle, apparently that’s a blend of the original Sleeping Beauty Castle in Disneyland California (notable for being the only one that Walt oversaw construction of) and Cinderella’s Castle in Walt Disney World (notable for being the only park that was really designed according to Walt’s vision).

So what’s this about a time capsule? Is that in the set or in a real theme park castle?

Corporate needs you to find the difference between these two pictures.

@SwingTop said:

"Yeah, the LEGO "investors" are crying. Their priced rare "asset" just got replaced."

Not quite an investor, but I am trying to sell my copy of 71040 I am fine with the new castle. It's $520CAD (so ~$600 with tax), and I'm asking less that.

This is an okay update, but I could see many people being more interested in the colour scheme and minifigs of the older castle.

I passed on the old castle as I did not care for the big bulky pieces used to construct the round towers. This one is a huge improvement. I may pick this up.

I will be ordering the new Disney Castle 43222 on Day 1. I have the original castle and see this new set as a companion piece, not a replacement. The minifigures look great and represent very iconic Disney characters. I like the fresh colors of the new castle and am excited about the build.

It does look spot on if I compare it to the current picture on Wwikipedia for the Cinderella Castle. But the light nougat with the gold is not working for me.

@essel said:
"Lovely! I hope someone will create a fully-enclosed version with two copies of the set, or a modular version, cf. The Costume Shop by BoltBricks on Rebrickable."

Same here. I don't know if I'll ever be able to afford two of these, but as a Lego City enthusiast, I'd really like to find a way to add a back wall to this, and preferably some sort of internal staircase,

@Adamskibrick said:
" @dawid said:
"Would’ve been better if they released a different castle: either the Disneyland Paris or the Disneyland Anaheim, so people that already have the previous castle don’t feel left out"

Pretty sure given that its just called "Disney Castle" its supposed to resemble the castle in the Disney Intro before movies as opposed to the WDW Cinderella castle.

Also wish they'd included Belle and Beast in this set. The minifigs are great, dont get me wrong. I have a feeling they will perhaps suddenly appear in their own, extortionatley priced set later on. "

Since there's already a Gaston minifig, surely it's a no-brainer that Belle and Beast will eventually appear in this form (most likely before the the 100 years of Disney celebrations have ended), but I wonder what type of Beauty and the Beast set they might conceivably appear in.

@Kev17 said:
"The article has the prices as $399.99 / €399.99 / £344.99 but the actual set page has them as £399.99 / $399.99 / 344.99€. I presume the set page is correct as £399.99 exchanges at around €343?"

Actually £399 exchanges at €463

@kwickbrick said:
"Wow this is the Disney Castle. I have the other Disney castle set, but these colors are more my style. I really like the light nougat versus the tan and sand blue is way better, than the gray. It is grander than the first which was very nice, but this is just stunning. The designer had a tough task and knocked it out of the park, way to go! Hopefully they keep this one for the next seven years, so I can add it to my collection."

I feel the other way. I feel they have overdone it with the gold accents. To be fair, I also feel Disney overdid it with the gold accents on the real thing. Then again, I think too much gold makes things look a bit gaudy.

And I am also not sure about too much sand-blue being the right choice.

I guess I need to see it in real life. Is it nicer, then I will part out my 5 year-old old one. If not, I will gladly stick to that one.

Need that Rapunzel and Floyd however.

I don't see what's changed from the previous version, they look the same. The colour change is not enough for double dip or replacement. The fireworks are nice.

The new outer wall with grounds looks so much smoother and full of display value. It's the newer colors I don't like.

The new figs are phenomenal.

Am I really gonna buy the new one to combine with the old one, swapping walls and colors? Meh.

Really do like the update, I like how they rounded the turrets more, and replaced a lot of white from the original one with gold elements at the top of the spire. Won't be upgrading but glad that a new wave of people can enjoy a set they may have missed out on. So glad the figures are different and that I have the older one. Don't care for these at all which I'm sure is a disappointment to those getting the new one. Definitely want to see a side by side photos with the new and old @huw as many people have mentioned it.

@AustinPowers said:
" @elangab said:
"I don't see what's changed from the previous version, they look the same."
At first glance I thought so too.
But look at the outer walls and towers in particular. Completely different building techniques. "

Looking closer, I see what you mean, but I find the overall look to be the same. Even if more refined, the castle itself looks the same, at least for me.

There's a jump, but not that drastic. It's not a bad thing, as the original one is great (and was cheaper), so this new set is equality good, just not good enough for a re-buy that's all :)

There are quite a lot of character references for those not included with this set. Hints that they'll be available elsewhere? Time will tell.

To me this is a downgrade.
The new colour scheme is absolutely atrocious. The blue roofs instead of dark blue looks worse, the flesh tone bricks look horrendous (specially considering they are mixed with tan bricks on the interior and dark tan on the exterior, which means LEGO's laziness prevented them from recolouring more bricks, despite the high price tag), and the overabundance of gold makes it look tacky AF, like the bathroom of some oligarch.

The minifigures are nice and the outter wall is OK, although sand blue is also a poor choice in my book.

So definitely not worth 400€ in my book.
If I find it for sale with a nice price discount (say +30% off) I might consider getting it as a parts pack and for the minifigures.
Otherwise it's a skip.

I would have absolutely bought it had they done EuroDisney's castle instead, or even the original one from Disneyland in California. But another (uglier) version of the same castle I already have? No thanks.

I have the original and actually prefer the colour scheme on the original.

Not really seeing the point of remaking it already, especially with a very similar build.

@djcbs said:
"To me this is a downgrade.
The new colour scheme is absolutely atrocious. The blue roofs instead of dark blue looks worse, the flesh tone bricks look horrendous (specially considering they are mixed with tan bricks on the interior and dark tan on the exterior, which means LEGO's laziness prevented them from recolouring more bricks, despite the high price tag), and the overabundance of gold makes it look tacky AF, like the bathroom of some oligarch.

The minifigures are nice and the outter wall is OK, although sand blue is also a poor choice in my book.

So definitely not worth 400€ in my book.
If I find it for sale with a nice price discount (say +30% off) I might consider getting it as a parts pack and for the minifigures.
Otherwise it's a skip.

I would have absolutely bought it had they done EuroDisney's castle instead, or even the original one from Disneyland in California. But another (uglier) version of the same castle I already have? No thanks.

"

Its.... not the same castle...

Its the castle from the Disney Movies Ident... not WDW.

"...The new Disney Castle set is a homage to the iconic castle at the beginning of all Disney movies..."

Still waiting for the Disney Paris castle, the best design of the bunch (imo). But this looks fantastic.

@Adamskibrick said:
" @djcbs said:
"To me this is a downgrade.
The new colour scheme is absolutely atrocious. The blue roofs instead of dark blue looks worse, the flesh tone bricks look horrendous (specially considering they are mixed with tan bricks on the interior and dark tan on the exterior, which means LEGO's laziness prevented them from recolouring more bricks, despite the high price tag), and the overabundance of gold makes it look tacky AF, like the bathroom of some oligarch.

The minifigures are nice and the outter wall is OK, although sand blue is also a poor choice in my book.

So definitely not worth 400€ in my book.
If I find it for sale with a nice price discount (say +30% off) I might consider getting it as a parts pack and for the minifigures.
Otherwise it's a skip.

I would have absolutely bought it had they done EuroDisney's castle instead, or even the original one from Disneyland in California. But another (uglier) version of the same castle I already have? No thanks.

"

Its.... not the same castle...

Its the castle from the Disney Movies Ident... not WDW.

"...The new Disney Castle set is a homage to the iconic castle at the beginning of all Disney movies...""

Except it’s not…as I mentioned earlier, and others have pointed out, the Disney movies logo is actually a combination of the Disney World and Disneyland castles. This castle, and the 2016 set, are indeed replicas of the Disneyworld one. It’s marketed as a general Disney castle, but it is based on the WDW.

@MrBedhead said:
" @kwickbrick said:
"Wow this is the Disney Castle. I have the other Disney castle set, but these colors are more my style. I really like the light nougat versus the tan and sand blue is way better, than the gray. It is grander than the first which was very nice, but this is just stunning. The designer had a tough task and knocked it out of the park, way to go! Hopefully they keep this one for the next seven years, so I can add it to my collection."

I feel the other way. I feel they have overdone it with the gold accents. To be fair, I also feel Disney overdid it with the gold accents on the real thing. Then again, I think too much gold makes things look a bit gaudy.

And I am also not sure about too much sand-blue being the right choice.

I guess I need to see it in real life. Is it nicer, then I will part out my 5 year-old old one. If not, I will gladly stick to that one.

Need that Rapunzel and Floyd however."

Who is Floyd? Do you mean Flynn Rider? Or are you talking about someone else?

@elangab said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @elangab said:
"I don't see what's changed from the previous version, they look the same."
At first glance I thought so too.
But look at the outer walls and towers in particular. Completely different building techniques. "

Looking closer, I see what you mean, but I find the overall look to be the same. Even if more refined, the castle itself looks the same, at least for me.

There's a jump, but not that drastic. It's not a bad thing, as the original one is great (and was cheaper), so this new set is equality good, just not good enough for a re-buy that's all :)"
Agree 100%
I'm really happy with the old one. It's one of just a select few of my largest sets I still have on display instead of taken apart again.

@AliveAndBricking said:
" @Coolguy5000 said:
"Is it confirmed the 100 years celebration is only with this set? Was holding off on some of the other Disney 100 sets for it. "

According to a press release I found via another site:

"To celebrate the launch and Disney’s 100th anniversary, LEGO will also be releasing an exclusive Disney 100 Years Celebration gift with purchase (GWP) for those that spend over US$100 / £95 / €100 on LEGO Disney sets from LEGO.com or at a LEGO store."

So, I take it from this, that the GWP is not exclusive to *this* set, but you will still have to spend the requisite amount on LEGO *Disney* sets."

Hm! Will that be just “traditional Disney”, I wonder, or would it also include Pixar. Marvel, and/or Lucasfilm? I’d love to be able to get the GWP with Star Wars and/or Indiana Jones stuff…

@AustinPowers said:
" It's one of just a select few of my largest sets I still have on display instead of taken apart again. "

Same. It's a central display in our living room, and both us and guests enjoy it.

Having the old one, and being a big Disney fan, this set is frustrating: it’s different enough I want it, but similar enough to where it doesn’t feel like a new set.

Yay, can’t wait to see the Disney castle before the new Indiana Jones instead of the Paramount mountain. Oh well, it’s not like Paramount is really making much better films than Disney (even if they’re the better company outside of what films they make).

And why is the Cinderella Castle at Disney World the bigger one? I get that the Evil Stepmother is probably loaded but Aurora is a literal princess living with the royal family, surely she should have the big one?

Considering that the colors of the castle align with the new paint colors the WDW castle used starting with the 50th anniversary, this is definitely trying to be the WDW Cinderella castle but marketed as the more archetypal "Disney castle" for promotional purposes, not to mention comparing the WDW castle to the logo castle, the exterior definitely follows the park structure more than the bumper one/s; look at the outer wall and the "growth" tower coming from the main tower.

@Trigger_ said:
"Yay, can’t wait to see the Disney castle before the new Indiana Jones instead of the Paramount mountain. Oh well, it’s not like Paramount is really making much better films than Disney (even if they’re the better company outside of what films they make).

And why is the Cinderella Castle at Disney World the bigger one? I get that the Evil Stepmother is probably loaded but Aurora is a literal princess living with the royal family, surely she should have the big one?"

For one thing Real Estate is more affordable in Florida then California. Not to mention the taxes are also lower. This allows for a larger castle in Florida then California. However the castle in California has a much better re-sell value due to many factors......

I started out thinking I didn't need this set because I really liked the earlier version (not that I've actually gotten around to building it or anything) but the more I look at these pictures the more I like the extra detailing--and, yes, the mottled walls! I have to admit the building techniques for the towers are much better, as well. So now I'm hesitating between buying lots of detail pieces from B&P (and/or Bricklink, depending on whether I settle on bley or sand blue for the main color) or buying the entire new set and finding a way to create an enlarged, fully walled castle that doesn't clash with itself too badly--perhaps a dollhouse-style combination with a different color scheme on each side? Bankruptcy court, here I come....

At least the figures don't duplicate!

And I will say the price seems fair.

Would have been PERFECT if it got a nice colorful box to match the 100 Anniversary. The box of the original was so good.
I don't know why LEGO has such a hard-on for plain boring black just so adults "feel more welcome".

@Trigger_:
When Disneyland was built, they managed to buy one square mile of turf in California, and immediately found themselves penned in on all sides with real estate prices that grew out of their price range. I don't know why Sleeping Beauty's Castle is so small, but I also don't know what local laws existed at the time the park was built. In Florida, they secretively bought up all the property until they had enough to do what they wanted, have room to expand, and ensure that some of the land never got developed. Cinderella's Castle height is just short enough to not require a blinking red light on top to warn off low-flying planes. However, they cheated the height. The spire is actually built in forced perspective, so it appears to be taller than it actually is, but it is still over twice as tall as SBC.

I'm not even a huge Disney fan, but isn't there like 4 other castles they could have chosen to make for this "celebration" considering they just retired their most famous one?

@Celldweller said:
"I'm not even a huge Disney fan, but isn't there like 4 other castles they could have chosen to make for this "celebration" considering they just retired their most famous one?"

Yes, but A) the 50th anniversary of Disney World just ended, so this was appropriate to help celebrate that, B) this is one of the more famous Disney landmarks that is recognizable to a broader audience, and C) they already had the general blueprint for this set, so they just had to make some changes here and there. Probably didn’t require a ton of effort.

Those are my thoughts at least. I would have preferred seeing a newer one too though.

This one is better than the last one in every way.

@Celldweller:
@monkyby87:
This is based on the film logo, which is a blend of the Sleeping Beauty (California) and Cinderella (Florida) castles.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Celldweller:
@monkyby87:
This is based on the film logo, which is a blend of the Sleeping Beauty (California) and Cinderella (Florida) castles."

As far as I could tell by careful scrutiny of the released images, the new castle has the same layout as the original one except for adding a square tower on the extreme right, viewing the entrance, and completing two arches in the ground floor arcade, viewing the back. The major differences between 71040 and 43222 (besides the color scheme and addition of fireworks) are the addition of the square tower (which is part of the actual castle--see https://allears.net/wp-content/uploads/archive/tp/mk/images/cinderella-castle-2012.jpg ), the building techniques for the round towers, as discussed extensively above, and the construction of the topmost spire, which, like the towers, are recognizably the same overall design, just better). 43222 is Cinderella's Castle. And really, what better castle could there be?

The addition of the fireworks in full display, rather than as potential defensive missiles, does remind me delightfully of how Disney specials on TV always started, with Tinkerbelle magically adding the fireworks to the image of the castle!

@PurpleDave said:
" @Celldweller:
@monkyby87:
This is based on the film logo, which is a blend of the Sleeping Beauty (California) and Cinderella (Florida) castles."
They say it’s based on the film logo, but ultimately it’s still a rather close replica of the Cinderella Castle in WDW. Granted I do think the coloring this time around makes it look more like the logo, but it’s still much closer to the WDW castle than Disneyland or a combination of the two. The logo combined parts of both, while this set really is just the Cinderella Castle with a few changes.

@sklamb:
@monkyby87:
Ah, I think I figured out the source of the confusion. The _article_ says it’s the castle from the movie logo, but the movie logo isn’t based on one specific castle. The description on the product page does state that it’s Cinderella’s Castle, just like the previous version (two, if you count the microscale version). @Huw, were you aware that the Disney film logo is a blend of two different castle? I wasn’t aware of this until just recently, as it seems logical that they’d use the most photographed castle in the world for the logo, but Sleeping Beauty’s Castle will always be the first Disney castle built.

So many gold and sand blue parts. Very good. The castle is beautiful otherwise. One more big expensive of a set, but beautiful.

It looks a little too golden compared to the previous? It makes it look a little cheap somehow.
I should probably finish building that. While I didn't like the minifigs in the previous version, that problem has since been remedied thanks to the CMF line.

@PurpleDave said:
" @sklamb:
@monkyby87:
Ah, I think I figured out the source of the confusion. The _article_ says it’s the castle from the movie logo, but the movie logo isn’t based on one specific castle. The description on the product page does state that it’s Cinderella’s Castle, just like the previous version (two, if you count the microscale version). @Huw, were you aware that the Disney film logo is a blend of two different castle? I wasn’t aware of this until just recently, as it seems logical that they’d use the most photographed castle in the world for the logo, but Sleeping Beauty’s Castle will always be the first Disney castle built."

It definitely is a bit of a confusing and misleading, especially since the logo is a blend. I would have liked one truly based on the logo though, as to be different enough from the older one to warrant a purchase.

I prefer the older model, I'm afraid to say. There's just something about the gold and pale pink that really clashes, although I like the grey crenellations, this is what 10305 should have aimed for.

Is it really seven years ago since that was launched? I can't believe I've been lured back into Lego collecting for over that length of time.

I really wanted the original but it was just too much money and I ultimately never got it. Glad I’m getting a second chance, but to be honest, I’m more excited about used copies of the original becoming cheaper.

As for the minifigures, id much prefer Mickey and company, but I already have them of course, so I suppose even though the princesses are less desirable, they are perhaps a better choice.

I like the new minifigure selection, but the gold on the castle is way too distracting. Definitely prefer the old version in terms of looks.