@8BrickMario said:
"That price seems impossibly high, but what a gorgeous use of color and parts! Hair for trees! Crates for siding! And a grossly oversized puppy! (But would that be the first time a minidoll animal appeared in a minifigure-style set?)"
Well, the minidoll animal molds are being reused in the sonic sets, but besides that, I don’t think so

@8BrickMario:
The first I can recall (and one that has been cited previously when this same question was asked) was a CTF set with a trans-light-blue “ice penguin”.

@ThatBionicleGuy:
It does look good, and it also doesn’t interest me. But it makes me wonder if they might do something like this that I would want to buy, like a Pixar scene (just about any Pixar scene will do except The Good Dinosaur or Cars 3).

@R0Sch:
The dog is probably supposed to be Nana.

Lego are killing it this year with the Disney sets. Such a good range and variety of sets, and we still have the castle and rumored camera set on the way.

Sorry to echo what others have said, but I'll give you my original thought with this set

"Oh, 'Peter Pan and Wendy' again? Is that a new show or something, given the recent microdoll story book also bore that name? It looks pretty okay and I guess it makes sense for the anniversary. Weird that we get even more, I thought they had all been revealed already. I like the color scheme, although the scale seems weird. I wonder how much this vignette will cost. It'll probably be a lot...
WAIT, HOW MUCH!!!!!!!?????"

Yeah, no.

And how is the perspective supposed to work here? Am I missing something or does it just not work to have smaller buildings in the front and larger detailed ones in the back? I'm pretty sure that's not how perspective works, especially not at this variation in sizes!

And it's weird how the other two boys aren't included. They're right there on the helpful screenshot on the back of the box (which also shows a dramatic difference in lighting. Although I'm not sure if it changed with different shots).

That price is a joke, right?

Nice set, but jeez...

2 disney 100 sets to go,this one is ok in my and many others opinion.

Any day now for the castle...

Looks great! I won't be getting it.

But for those of you saying $60 is too much for what you get: see the Star Wars diorama line.

Also for those saying $60 is too much - I feel you. I buy Lego Star Wars. Wait for a sale!

All the new lame Disney IPs are flopping do they gotta do the old nostalgia price gouge. I don’t dislike it however the pice is silly.

While I don't quite agree the thirty dollars would be a fair price (it does have more than 450 pieces, after all), I agree that it should be cheaper, maybe forty to fifty. Sixty is just ridiculous. I also agree on the NPU. Not only the crates, but is that https://brickset.com/parts/design-35473 behind the clock faces? That piece hasn't been used since 2020, and was only in four sets. I thought it had only been used in Unikitty! sets, but I see in the database that two of those uses were in other lines. And the dog strikes me as maybe some sort of statuary, as @R0Sch suggested.

65€?!??!? WHAT?!?!?!?

Where is Michael, John & Nana the dog?

The build looks really good! They did a great job portraying the night, and I love the NPU. It looks like Wendy's hair makes a return from the treehouse, but I could be mistaken. Hopefully we'll see that hair in more sets. The price is a bit too much, but I'm looking forward to seeing what other similar sets they could do in this format.

@TheOtherMike said:
"... but is that https://brickset.com/parts/design-35473 behind the clock faces? That piece hasn't been used since 2020, and was only in four sets. I thought it had only been used in Unikitty! sets, but I see in the database that two of those uses were in other lines."

I'm pretty certain it's 8 of the quarter circle pieces that are also on the corners of each clock face. But I maybe wrong!

@TheOtherMike said:
"While I don't quite agree the thirty dollars would be a fair price (it does have more than 450 pieces, after all), I agree that it should be cheaper, maybe forty to fifty. Sixty is just ridiculous. I also agree on the NPU. Not only the crates, but is that https://brickset.com/parts/design-35473 behind the clock faces? That piece hasn't been used since 2020, and was only in four sets. I thought it had only been used in Unikitty! sets, but I see in the database that two of those uses were in other lines. And the dog strikes me as maybe some sort of statuary, as @R0Sch suggested."

The parts behind the clock face are just 1x1 pizza slice tiles although I see why you would say that.

@sjr60 said:
"This is a really sweet set, from my era of Disney. Shall definitely get it once the price drops a bit.

Folks really shouldn't get so agitated about high RRP on non exclusive sets. There are plenty of 'Must have, money no object' customers who will buy on day 1. For everyone prepared to wait a month or 2, there's plenty of leeway for the price to reduce when the initial rush subsides. This is just standard practice, not proof that Lego got the initial price wrong. "

You're absolutely correct, and that's my operating procedure. But, I'm beginning to wonder if Lego has grown too fast (prices and product range) in this economic climate?

How many people are still Day 1 buyers? I think most of the AFOL community is worn out.

@LegoAndWhisky, {hantomBricks: Now that I take a closer look, I see the seams between the tiles, so yeah, not what I was thinking. And now that I think about it, I'm not sure a 3x3 round tile could attach to that piece centered like that, anyway.

Pretty mediocre for a $60 set. $50 would have been more reasonable.

No Captain Rex?!
Why does Lego hate fans??
And a fairy?!
This set is for woke loser Disney fans!!

That price is a bit yikes, for 30 usd less but almost 150 pieces less, you can get Baby Rocket's Ship. And in most scenarios for lego, 100 pieces = 10usd. So this set should be at least 50 dollars.

@TheOtherMike:
I just checked them in LDraw, and the 3x3 round tile has a 2x2 cluster of anti-studs, so the single stud on your part would fit right in the center of them. There are two issues, though. One is that it sits two plates high, so there's room underneath the petals for plates or tiles. The other is that the petals are shorter and narrower than what you get with the pizza tiles. However, you can layer the two. Take this build, remove the clock face and the 2x2 plate that's probably behind it, and you can sink your flower plate into the pocket and reattach the clock face. It'll stick out another plate from the clock tower, but the petals actually form steps with the pizza tiles.

At that price and without Michael and John, it’s a walk right past, straight on till morning.

Ehhh another boring display piece.
Why not make a PROPPER PLAYSETS that look good?

A shame the upcoming Disney Castle will ruin the 100th Anniversary line with its boring black lifeless design. I really don't see why LEGO keeps this. Just to make adults not feel embarrassed buying their product? lol.

I’m with everyone else here, too expensive. If it drops below $40 I’ll pick one up.

At least the minifigs are accurate with this set

Love the use of colour and some of the miniature buildings look fantastic considering their small amount of pieces. That's where the positives end though. The price is a joke and the use of perspective doesn't work as well here compared to sets like 30651 and 30652.

Probably won't pick this up, even though Peter Pan is one of my favourite classic Disney films.

Unpopular opinion: Very nice set (even when I don't care much about the source material), but waaaaay overpriced.

When sets need a 30% discount just to seem reasonable within the Lego realm (so still very expensive...), there's something wrong....

Not sure about a blue Big Ben clock tower, but the panels will make a nice TARDIS...

@CliveyB said:
"Not sure about a blue Big Ben clock tower, but the panels will make a nice TARDIS..."
But Big Ben always turns blue at night!
https://images.app.goo.gl/QNjcWmFjnitpkz3a7

Interesting use of square containers for the walls of Big Ben, and I like the river and lampposts. To add variety dark green may have worked better for the ground at night. Just not willing to pay the Disney tax, but can see that this is aimed at tourists who have become benign to over-paying for everything Disney.

Let me echo: what are they thinking with those prices?
Otherwise quite nice.

Those incredibly expensive black bases are spreading out from the Star Wars diorama line.

Peter Pan and Tinkerbell heads look really weird. Especially Tinkerbell.

I have tried a Star Wars diorama on a steep discount, but I found it to be not very satisfying. It's finished, now what?
This set gives of the same vibe. This adds to the overpricedness in my opinion.

@bookmum said:
"This isn’t a Lego comment but I feel the need to share a story…..
I saw a patient transport ambulance the other day for Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children. (GOSH were gifted the rights to Peter Pan many years ago - I believe Disney have to give money to them for permission to use the characters).
Anyway….the ambulance.
It was all painted up and it’s name was…..wait for it….
“Peter Panbluance”
That’s it. That’s my story. Carry on with your day."

lol

@bookmum:
Disney already produced a film, so they have the rights to that completed work in perpetuity, but there may be a royalties clause where they have to fork over a cut of the merchandising. Or there may not be one. People sign badly written contracts all the time.

Given how long it’s been since this film came out, though, the original contract probably ended years ago, and Disney would have had to reacquire the rights for more recent adaptations. It is interesting that apparently GOSH has a special clause that prevents Peter Pan from falling fully into public domain. I’m not aware of any other copyrighted work that has similar status.

I love microscale but for that price, but that price is outrageous and there's been so many much better Big Bens in microscale.

I' m praying those clock pieces are printed, but I'm not holding out much hope.

I love the color palette and the general execution of this set (although the unprinted oversized dog is just kind of weird).

But that price! This is the same price as Carl's House (43217), which had about 130 more pieces and three exclusive minifigures. I just don't see the justification for this kind of pricing. Maybe I'll pick it up on clearance.

@Lemerbrix06 said:
" @8BrickMario said:
"That price seems impossibly high, but what a gorgeous use of color and parts! Hair for trees! Crates for siding! And a grossly oversized puppy! (But would that be the first time a minidoll animal appeared in a minifigure-style set?)"
Well, the minidoll animal molds are being reused in the sonic sets, but besides that, I don’t think so
"

a minidoll bird was used in Steamboat Willie, and a minidoll raccoon was in this year's Rocket Raccoon's Ship I believe

@TheOtherMike said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
"Unpopular opinion: Very nice set (even when I don't care much about the source material), but waaaaay overpriced."
A number of other commenters have already expressed the same opinion, more or less. I don't think it's that unpopular of an opinion."

Obvious joke should have been pretty obvious ;-)

The set is beautiful but the price is absolutely ridiculous.
This is NOT worth 65€. 45€? Maybe And that's pushing it. But 64€ is beyond a rip-off.

Minifig Tink just doesn't work, and the minidoll in 43215 outclassing it in every conceivable way makes it hard to justify continuing to attempt this.

I agree with everyone on the price. When I first saw the set, the eyeball test pegged it as a clear $40, but $60 is ridiculous. 40478 has roughly equal display value, has more good viewing angles, more pieces (admittedly small ones), and is 33% less.

@PurpleDave said:
"It is interesting that apparently GOSH has a special clause that prevents Peter Pan from falling fully into public domain. I’m not aware of any other copyrighted work that has similar status."
I believe it's been referred to as "the copyright that won't grow up."

I find the minifigs deeply unappealing. Set is meh. I'm ready for Disney 100 to end already.

So at 1st glance I thought, "that's a really nice GWP".
Then I saw £57.99 ??

@PurpleDave said:
" @bookmum:
Disney already produced a film, so they have the rights to that completed work in perpetuity, but there may be a royalties clause where they have to fork over a cut of the merchandising. Or there may not be one. People sign badly written contracts all the time.

Given how long it’s been since this film came out, though, the original contract probably ended years ago, and Disney would have had to reacquire the rights for more recent adaptations. It is interesting that apparently GOSH has a special clause that prevents Peter Pan from falling fully into public domain. I’m not aware of any other copyrighted work that has similar status."

Some clarifications:

- Regardless of Disney's wishes, there's no such thing as copyrights in perpetuity in the USA (even though Disney has done its best to try to get them). The rights that Disney enjoys over their Peter Pan film are separate from the rights of the source material, and will expire under American law (which is the one applicable to Disney) 95 years after publication, which in Peter Pan's case was 1953 (which is why it enjoyed the regime prior to 1978). That is, assuming Disney DID renew its registration (they likely have). Otherwise the film would have fallen in public domain after the first 28 years (so in 1981).
As such, under US law, the Disney version of Peter Pan will fall on public domain, whether they like it or not, in 2048.

- Peter Pan, the book, is in the public domain in the USA. The play, however, is still within the 95 years extension, and thus only falls on public domain at the end of this year of 2023 (1928 year of publication + 95 years).
HOWEVER, because copyright is not international, in continental Europe, for example, both the book AND the play have been in the public domain since the end of 2007.
In Britain, on the other hand, the law was changed in 1988 to give the Great Ormond Street Hospital the rights to royalties from the story of Peter Pan in perpetuity as it is a charity and not really a corporation seeking profits like Disney.
Still, British law is worthless outside Britain so the GOSH can't demand anything from anyone outside the UK when it comes to Peter Pan, specially when the works have fallen in public domain in those regions.

@djcbs:
I knew there was at least one international treaty regarding copyright, and that copyright is more or less honored worldwide as soon as it’s established in the country of origin. But I ran across a clause called the “rule of the shorter term”. Basically, there’s a default term, and signatory nations may claim longer terms, but no other nation has to honor that term longer than they would for domestic copyrights.

So, you may be satisfied with the default term if 50 years. I may prefer 70, Hollywoodland may set theirs at 100, and Disnylvania might pick 1000 years after giving up on attempts to claim in perpetuity. Nobody has to honor your copyright past the 50 years you claimed. Likewise, you get to tell the rest of us to take a hike when our copyrights turn 50. I would have to honor all claims except your own for 70 years, H & D would be locked in for 100 years for each other, and only Disnylvania has to honor their own ridiculous attempts.

Here’s the thing, though. As long as it’s under copyright _somewhere_, Disney probably can’t just do whatever they please. In that nation, copyright is still in effect, so they are likely bound by it, where they wouldn’t be in a neighboring country. In order to do anything based on Peter Pan, I’d guess they either have to license the IP from GOSH, or forego any right to ever show it in the UK.