Like the film, new element perhaps?

Damn, how many sets does Disney need to celebrate its anniversary?

People said we wouldn't get a Walt Disney minifigure; well, there it is!

@darthnorman said:
"Damn, how many sets does Disney need to celebrate its anniversary?"

Disney and capitalism go hand in hand

@darthnorman said:
"Damn, how many sets does Disney need to celebrate its anniversary?"

100!

Dumbo, Walt and Bambi all look beautiful! I really like the camera build but it feels very steep. for what you’re paying. But the figures and film roll really adds a lot of value! I’ll definitely consider this. :P

Weird choice to put 3 (or 5, depending how you look at it) minifigs in a set that has nothing to do with minifig scale. Also, a pretty expensive piece that I can't really see being reused anywhere. Nice build though.

@Ard007 said:
"Like the film, new element perhaps?"

Suspect it will similar to the strap in the Fender IDEAS set?

Love it! Highlighting proper vintage Disney rather than the modern nonsense. And a not too extortionate price (for a Disney set!)

This is very cool, but not at all what I expected. I assumed it would be a small GWP set with Walt. I do like this, but I'm not sure I want it in my house. It's a bit... Well, it's not exactly iconic like the castle is. It's more like a buildable advertisement.

Also where's Minnie's hat?

Also are we gonna get George Lucas for Star Wars's 50th?

Looks more like a camera from the golden age of film-making than a projector. (Hand-crank, multiple lenses and a focus puller are camera features, and cine projectors generally wouldn't be on a tripod.)

Nice model, I can see me getting this and removing the '100' on the film canisters for display as a general cine camera.

Aw I love Bambi and Dumbo.

LEGO Lion King figures next please!! :)

"The Emperor himself will be aboard. Many Bothans died to bring us this information..."

@Binnekamp said:
"Sigh... another one?

Besides the minifigs this model feels weak. Not in execution, but in concept. What disney fan asked for a model of a _film camera_?

At least an E.P.C.O.T. scale model or something would have made sense XD

That said, nice minifigs. Not sure how I feel about the increase in real historical people being made minifigs years after they lived though."

I think someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning :P

Without a film camera, we would have none of the Disney movies we know and love, so it’s nice to see it being showcased in a set. With some sweet figures as a bonus.

Not another mech!

As a huge fan of Disney, this set is a must have for me. Definitely buying it when it shows up at the toy store near me (won’t order it), I am not waiting. Have been waiting on a Walt Disney minifigure in years, and with Dumbo and Bambi in the set too, I can’t wait for a discount. Just don’t hope the Danish price is ridiculous high.

And once again, instead of proper playsets with iconic scenes for kids with these figs we get this VERY ADULT MEMORABILIA DO NOT DECONSTRUCT set.
Amazing. 1/10

Glad it isn’t on a black box

@darthnorman said:
"Damn, how many sets does Disney need to celebrate its anniversary?"

As many as market research indicated that we would buy!

@LukeSkywalker said:
" @Binnekamp said:
"Sigh... another one?

Besides the minifigs this model feels weak. Not in execution, but in concept. What disney fan asked for a model of a _film camera_?

At least an E.P.C.O.T. scale model or something would have made sense XD

That said, nice minifigs. Not sure how I feel about the increase in real historical people being made minifigs years after they lived though."

I think someone got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning :P

Without a film camera, we would have none of the Disney movies we know and love, so it’s nice to see it being showcased in a set. With some sweet figures as a bonus. "

I just had a lack of brain power for a moment. My thought was: 'this is a film camera whilst everything was drawn by hand.' I only now remember that those animation cells still have to be translated to a film roll. Which was probably by filming the cells in rapid succession. I'm dumb.

Still, something related to the actual drawing might have been more on point. Idk what though. But as it stands this set feels kind of like a stretch to me personally.

@darthnorman said:
"Damn, how many sets does Disney need to celebrate its anniversary?"

I suspect that Disney owns part of LEGO. At least LEGO economy depends too much on Disney...

I hope that Bambi figure appears in another set at some point, maybe a little scene set similar to the Peter Pan one. I'd really like to get him - I had a little Bambi plastic toy when I was a kid, but for all my eBay searching I've never been able to find the one I remember, so this would be a nice substitute - but aside from the film reel, with its Lego-style depictions of famous Disney movies on it, the rest of the set just doesn't interest me that much.

I mean, it is a cool set! Just isn't quite for me, I guess.

@lluisgib said:
" @darthnorman said:
"Damn, how many sets does Disney need to celebrate its anniversary?"

I suspect that Disney owns part of LEGO. At least LEGO economy depends too much on Disney..."

One could argue the entertainment industry as a whole relies too much on Disney.

Anyway, this set is well-designed, but still kind of feels like an odd choice. When I think “animation”, these cameras aren’t exactly what first comes to mind.

I really like this set! The camera looks like it's a great display piece (and if you don't like the '100' on top, it looks like you can remove the 1 relatively easily so it's a bit less conspicuous in your living room ;) ).

I also really like the (what looks like a) multiplane camera sidebuild! Very apt to include this since the Walt Disney Studios pioneered this technology and it has had a defining role in animation since.

Was not expecting bambi or dumbo.

@Tc99m said:
" @darthnorman said:
"Damn, how many sets does Disney need to celebrate its anniversary?"

As many as market research indicated that we would buy!"
You, me, and most AFOLs won’t care about this set but there are literally thousands of Disney collectors who will buy this and make
Lego another pile of cash.

I would actually like to have the Bambi and Dumbo figs, so I hope they show up in other sets.

Okay, the Walt Disney Company is, in my opinion, a monopolistic, artificial, scummy corporation… but I want this so bad! Maybe it’s my love for film history.

@Taggerung1 said:
"But... but Disney was made famous by animation... Why is it a film camera, they didn't film anything they just drew the pictures and put them in order. Sure they have to translate that to a reel of film but I doubt a camera is the way they did that, it doesn't make any sense..."
It's an animation film camera, designed to shoot one frame at a time.

@graymattr said:
"I would actually like to have the Bambi and Dumbo figs, so I hope they show up in other sets. "
I suspect they'll at least turn up as keychains!

This is the first anniversary Disney set that's a definite purchase for me.

I like everything about it with the exception of the prominence of the 100, but the clever integration of it into the reel reduces its starkness.

Dumbo and Bambi and the film strip are winners.

@graymattr said:
" @Tc99m said:
" @darthnorman said:
"Damn, how many sets does Disney need to celebrate its anniversary?"

As many as market research indicated that we would buy!"
You, me, and most AFOLs won’t care about this set but there are literally thousands of Disney collectors who will buy this and make
Lego another pile of cash.

I would actually like to have the Bambi and Dumbo figs, so I hope they show up in other sets. "

Well this AFOL cares about this set, I like the design and it's already on my wishlist. ;)

Holy smokes, this is awesome! As someone interested in early days of cinema and especially animation, I’d want this with or without a Disney connection. I’m not sure how many others that would be, but I can see other fans getting this and stripping it of all the Disney / animation-related aspects and MOCing minifigures of Charlie Chaplin, Shirley Temple, Paul Robeson, Georges Méliès, F. W. Murnau, Buster Keaton, Mary Pickford, and just… on and on and on to go with this.

@Binnekamp said:
"Sigh... another one?

Besides the minifigs this model feels weak. Not in execution, but in concept. What disney fan asked for a model of a _film camera_?

At least an E.P.C.O.T. scale model or something would have made sense XD"

Dude, the camera has appeal *beyond* Disney! At its core, the primary build here is very much like those of the Ideas typewriter, piano, and guitar - the tool of an artist. Don’t you ever enjoy movies?! Have you no soul?!

Anyway, this is so clearly tied to the studio’s beginnings. Epcot wasn’t even built until after Walt died. Moreover, they’re already doing other sets depicting structures pertaining to the theme parks, as well as sets involving Disney characters. This fills a unique niche, though; the closest thing to this is the GWP that just went in a flash (damn, it’s too bad one won’t be able to get that with this; that would have been great).

@PixelTheDragon said:
" @lluisgib said:
" @darthnorman said:
"Damn, how many sets does Disney need to celebrate its anniversary?"

I suspect that Disney owns part of LEGO. At least LEGO economy depends too much on Disney..."

One could argue the entertainment industry as a whole relies too much on Disney.

Anyway, this set is well-designed, but still kind of feels like an odd choice. When I think “animation”, these cameras aren’t exactly what first comes to mind."

As Tc99m notes, the sidebuild *clearly* depicts a multiplane camera animation stand, which is *absolutely* an animation thing, and what’s more, it’s one pioneered by Disney; it’s an essential part of movie animation history, one subsequently used by others but as significant a part of the Disney story as literally any other object they could build. Had that not been included, you might have had a point, but including that makes it as Disneytastic as could be.

@Taggerung1 said:
"But... but Disney was made famous by animation... Why is it a film camera, they didn't film anything they just drew the pictures and put them in order. Sure they have to translate that to a reel of film but I doubt a camera is the way they did that, it doesn't make any sense."

Oh, dear! Do you really have no idea how animated movies are -er, used to be made (or what a multiplane camera is)? Do you think Ub Iwerks and others just… drew directly onto film, or what?? That *is* an animation technique some animators use, but it’s not really associated with early Disney the way this is.

Yes, they photograph animation artwork with a camera (or they used to, anyway, certainly in Walt’s time). They just do it one or two or three frames at a time, rather than shooting things in motion at 24 frames per second (or less, in the silent era).

@Taggerung1 said:
"But... but Disney was made famous by animation... Why is it a film camera, they didn't film anything they just drew the pictures and put them in order. Sure they have to translate that to a reel of film but I doubt a camera is the way they did that, it doesn't make any sense..

Now if they'd made a set of the underground bunker where Walt's head is frozen in a jar waiting until the technology exists for him to be revived.... I might have bought that."

Uhmmm, how do you suppose they put the animation on film?? :D

(yes, they used cameras, and specifically made use of a multiplane camera to make filming easier - since you can reuse elements for different frames - and to achieve depth).

Most of my appreciation of this set is more because of my love of vintage tech than my love of Disney, but I do like it. That's a rather clever way to integrate the "100."

@PixelTheDragon said:
"One could argue the entertainment industry as a whole relies too much on Disney."
"We are Disney. You will be assimilated. We will add your pop-cultural relevance to our own. Your IPs will adapt to service us. Resistance... is futile."

Yeah, so after 100 years, many of us are sick and tired of Disney.

@oukexergon said:
"Yeah, so after 100 years, many of us are sick and tired of Disney."

I'm sick of them ruining their own franchises and movies,while charging a higher price for it all.

"This set doesn't appeal to me personally, therefore I think it's stupid."

"I don't understand this set, therefore I think it's stupid."

I miss the days when Brickset comments weren't so tiresome and repetitive.

@oukexergon said:
"Yeah, so after 100 years, many of us are sick and tired of Disney."

And many, many more are not.

@Binnekamp said:
"Sigh... another one?

Besides the minifigs this model feels weak. Not in execution, but in concept. What disney fan asked for a model of a _film camera_?."

I mean a) you don’t have to buy it, and b) Me. As a film and Disney fan, I love it.

Anyway, is that a multiplane camera build? That’s a great little reference.

@Taggerung1 said:
"But... but Disney was made famous by animation... Why is it a film camera, they didn't film anything they just drew the pictures and put them in order. Sure they have to translate that to a reel of film but I doubt a camera is the way they did that, it doesn't make any sense.."

They mounted a film camera pointing straight down and shot 1-2 frames of film per drawing/cel underneath it. Other early Disney cartoons mixed live action film and animation for Alice in Wonderland. Disney made animated and live action films using film cameras.

Walt shot the Alice Comedies long before doing pure animation. Alice Comedies are a combination of live action and animation, so the film camera is appropriate.

Looking at my previous post, I think I was a little unduly brusque in my replies to some, especially @Taggerung1. My apologies; that was not my intent. I don’t wish to belittle anyone for gaps in their knowledge when I surely have so many of my own. I was just a little taken aback by some of the questions here, but that’s no excuse for being rude, and again, I apologize.

As a film student, I like this set a lot, even if I’m less enthused about the Disney parts of it. I do like this early era of Disney more than essentially any subsequent one, but if I end up getting this I’ll probably sell the minifigures to offset the cost and then remove the “1” to keep it as a standard camera. It’s also very cool that the display stand is a clapperboard, even if that has essentially zero utility in animation.

" @Binnekamp said:

Still, something related to the actual drawing might have been more on point. Idk what though. But as it stands this set feels kind of like a stretch to me personally."

The Mickey Mouse ears are based on the camera reels. That's where Walt got his inspiration from when he had to come up with a character to replace Oswald The Lucky Rabbit.

The minifigs of Bambi and Dumbo are adorable. I hope LEGO will put them in other sets too. Also, I want Thumper now!

Over in Transformers fandom, we have a reasonably commonly accepted practice of splitting up multipacks--if I only want Goldbug and Skywasp out of the Creatures Collide four-pack, then I find someone who only wants Scorponok and Ransack, and then one of us buys the pack and sends the two they doesn't want to the other in exchange for half the price they paid. I don't know if AFOLs ever do the same, but judging by the comments here it sure seems like there are a lot of people who either don't want the camera or only want the camera.

I never, ever thought that a multipane camera would make its way into an official Lego set. Looks like it’s functional too!

It's kinda neat, but I'd be nice to see Les Clark, or Marc Darvis, or Ollie Johnston, or Milt Kahl, or Ward Kimball, or Eric Larson, or John Lounsbery, or Wolfgang Reitherman, or Frank Thomas...

Or Bill Tytla, Fred Moore, Norman Ferguson, Mark Henn, Glen Keane, Andreas Deja, James Baxter, Aaron Blaise...

Actually, screw it, where's the Disney Animators CMF line?

@djcbs said:
"The set is really cool. Albeit overpriced, due to the completely unnecessary Bambi and Dumbo figures.
I'm glad we're getting them, but I think it would have been better to have them in another set and have this one more focused Walt himself.

Anyway, I'll be getting it.
I'm a huge fan of Walt Disney - the man - and I want this a memento to remind me Disney was once a great traditional family-centric company, not the cancerous degenerate corporation it is today."

Even ignoring the “cancerous and degenerate” comment, Walt Disney famously said that he made movies to make money, not the other way around. He is directly responsible for the “corporate” nature of the company. Many of his artistic contributions were based not in a desire to create a cultural legacy but rather in a desire to innovate for the sake of business growth.

@Mr__Thrawn said:
"Even ignoring the “cancerous and degenerate” comment, Walt Disney famously said that he made movies to make money, not the other way around. He is directly responsible for the “corporate” nature of the company. Many of his artistic contributions were based not in a desire to create a cultural legacy but rather in a desire to innovate for the sake of business growth."
Completely agree.
I have watched several documentaries on Walt Disney over the years, and though we owe him and his company (including several important "old men") many great characters and moments we love and treasure, he never did this out of the goodness of his heart. From what I gathered he could be quite ruthless, and definitely was not a nice but a highly controversial person. Dig deeper and you will find some really nasty details. I love quite a lot of the Disney output (though more the classic stuff than current), but I was never a fan of the man or the company.

@Taggerung1 said:
" @Blondie_Wan said:
"As Tc99m notes, the sidebuild *clearly* depicts a multiplane camera animation stand, which is *absolutely* an animation thing, and what’s more, it’s one pioneered by Disney; it’s an essential part of movie animation history, one subsequently used by others but as significant a part of the Disney story as literally any other object they could build. Had that not been included, you might have had a point, but including that makes it as Disneytastic as could be.

@Taggerung1 said:
"But... but Disney was made famous by animation... Why is it a film camera, they didn't film anything they just drew the pictures and put them in order. Sure they have to translate that to a reel of film but I doubt a camera is the way they did that, it doesn't make any sense."

Oh, dear! Do you really have no idea how animated movies are -er, used to be made (or what a multiplane camera is)? Do you think Ub Iwerks and others just… drew directly onto film, or what?? That *is* an animation technique some animators use, but it’s not really associated with early Disney the way this is.

Yes, they photograph animation artwork with a camera (or they used to, anyway, certainly in Walt’s time). They just do it one or two or three frames at a time, rather than shooting things in motion at 24 frames per second (or less, in the silent era)."

I guess it's not as clear to someone who hasn't seen one of those. Now you mention it, and describe it, I can see the stand on the front of the camera. But unless you know what that is, you don't know, right?"
How times have changed. When I was a kid, knowing how a movie camera worked was considered general knowledge. Just like many other basic things young people nowadays have no understanding of any longer, since all they seem to do all day long is play on some mobile device.
Then again, back in my time we HAD to know such stuff if we wanted to film something. My first camera was indeed an (8mm) cine camera.

@AustinPowers said:
" @Taggerung1 said:
" @Blondie_Wan said:
"As Tc99m notes, the sidebuild *clearly* depicts a multiplane camera animation stand, which is *absolutely* an animation thing, and what’s more, it’s one pioneered by Disney; it’s an essential part of movie animation history, one subsequently used by others but as significant a part of the Disney story as literally any other object they could build. Had that not been included, you might have had a point, but including that makes it as Disneytastic as could be.

@Taggerung1 said:
"But... but Disney was made famous by animation... Why is it a film camera, they didn't film anything they just drew the pictures and put them in order. Sure they have to translate that to a reel of film but I doubt a camera is the way they did that, it doesn't make any sense."

Oh, dear! Do you really have no idea how animated movies are -er, used to be made (or what a multiplane camera is)? Do you think Ub Iwerks and others just… drew directly onto film, or what?? That *is* an animation technique some animators use, but it’s not really associated with early Disney the way this is.

Yes, they photograph animation artwork with a camera (or they used to, anyway, certainly in Walt’s time). They just do it one or two or three frames at a time, rather than shooting things in motion at 24 frames per second (or less, in the silent era)."

I guess it's not as clear to someone who hasn't seen one of those. Now you mention it, and describe it, I can see the stand on the front of the camera. But unless you know what that is, you don't know, right?"
How times have changed. When I was a kid, knowing how a movie camera worked was considered general knowledge. Just like many other basic things young people nowadays have no understanding of any longer, since all they seem to do all day long is play on some mobile device.
Then again, back in my time we HAD to know such stuff if we wanted to film something. My first camera was indeed an (8mm) cine camera. "

While I think many kids should know more basic things these days, it’s quite insulting to say they don’t know it because they just play on their phones all day long. The technology isn’t used anymore, so why would they know about it? Same with something simple like a rotary phone or the typewriter, of which they made a Lego set. They basically don’t exist anymore for practical purposes, so why should we expect someone to know how to use them, and that it’s wrong that they dont?

@AustinPowers said:
"How times have changed. When I was a kid, knowing how a movie camera worked was considered general knowledge. Just like many other basic things young people nowadays have no understanding of any longer.... "

Meanwhile, young people today understand lots of things I didn't know at their age, because they hadn't been invented/discovered yet. I suspect the kids are all right.

As a fan of sets like the Ideas typewriter, I love this set, and I'm even happier because of the multiplane animation stand--and the inclusion of the Walt Disney figure. The price does seem rather over the top, unless that camera is considerably larger than it seems in the images, but this is still my favorite 100th anniversary set. It almost (not quite) makes up for not being able to get the recent GWP. Perhaps the reason why that "sold out" so quickly is because it was actually withdrawn to become a GWP when this makes its debut? (Well, I can hope, any way!)

@monkyby87 said:

Not insulting, it's a fact. I'm (unfortunately) from Gen Z and I can confirm all young people do all day is play on their phones. Indeed I'm quite puzzled as to what on earth they are even doing, there's only so many times you can check emails/social media if no one has messaged/sent you stuff and it would be silly to play games all day. To return to the original point however young people thesedays really do know basically nothing. 18 year olds at my school didn't know the difference between the army and the navy, thought there were automobiles in the 14th century "You know, those like really oollld ones", thought Thailand was in Africa. etc. Any machinery or task outside of something IT related they can't do. They can rant about how rubber is 'bad', but couldn't change a tyre. On school camps I'd want to play cards but no one knew even the most basic of games, nor could they set up even the really easy wire tents. And if there's one thing I want to emphasise, young people don't know as much about 'technology' as they make out they do. Many employers have been complaining of this, Gen Z ers coming in claiming to know everything, then it is found they can't use whatever programme the workplace is using and the young ones refuse to listen to their older co workers.
Rotary phones, cameras and typewriters are all good things to know, even if simply to apply those skills elsewhere. Certainly it's great to learn how to use a camera if you have an interest in film. Furthermore, at school we were forced to get Ipads for example, and learn them (we were taught nothing), yet now the only people using Ipads are 70+ year olds. Most of society doesn't use Ipads except for the occasional random use to try and justify wasting hundreds of dollars on an oversized Iphone. It's almost stupid to 'know' anything about tech thesedays because by the time you learn how to use an Ipod, they are 'so last year' and no one uses them. Whereas knowing to use a pencil to wind a cassette can come in handy when you come across one. (and yes you do come across cassettes like with original recordings of cool 70s/80s songs, or family gatherings and so forth. Same with VCRs and home videos.)