Review: 76210 Hulkbuster
Posted by CapnRex101,
LEGO's current success provides an opportunity to develop bigger and more ambitious products than ever before, yielding some exceptional sets. However, larger creations sometimes encounter significant problems and 76210 Hulkbuster has drawn near-universal criticism.
The substantial scale of the Hulkbuster appears impressive, but its proportions are wildly inaccurate, most obviously around the torso. Certain compromises were evidently required to accommodate 76206 Iron Man Figure inside. Maybe this would be excusable in a set developed for play, although not an expensive display model.
Summary
76210 Hulkbuster, 4,049 pieces.
£474.99 / $549.99 / €549.99 | 11.7p/13.6c/13.6c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
Regrettably, 76210 Hulkbuster combines a flawed idea with even worse execution
- Some nice details
- Compatible with 76206 Iron Man Figure
- Inaccurate proportions
- Very limited articulation
- Numerous conspicuous gaps
- Extremely overpriced
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Box and Contents
Despite their considerable difference in price, the packaging for 76215 Black Panther and 76210 Hulkbuster is identical in size, which is immediately concerning. I think Tony Stark's spectacular creation looks reasonable against the dark backdrop and I like the border along the bottom, but moving the Hulkbuster to accommodate the LEGO and Infinity Saga branding is awkward.
There are 35 bags inside, numbered from one to 25, with three instruction manuals, which split construction between the core of the chest, the legs and the arms. Unfortunately, a large sticker sheet is also provided. Printed elements would obviously have been preferable, but requiring so many decorated elements at this scale is perhaps more surprising, given the notable opportunity for brick-built details.
Minifigure
LEGO has produced almost fifty versions of Tony Stark and Iron Man since 2012 and the latest edition is relatively bland, unfortunately. This minifigure takes inspiration from Avengers: Age of Ultron and the scene in which Tony supervises the completion of Vision, sporting his partial Iron Man armour. The design therefore reflects the movie, but choosing this minifigure to accompany the Hulkbuster seems odd.
The repeated double-sided head is disappointing, particularly given Tony's memorable nervous expression while battling the Hulk, which could have appeared here. Moreover, a dual-moulded arm would have been perfect to represent the gauntlet worn onscreen, although the torso decoration looks good. Nevertheless, this minifigure is pretty lacklustre.
Reference
Source - ironman.fandom.com
The Completed Model
While more closely associated with Star Wars, stickered information plaques have appeared in many recent Super Heroes sets. I like their consistent style and the information on this sticker is accurate, even though the description of Veronica's active service system is very simplified. The space to display Tony Stark is welcome too.
Bizarrely, there is also room to attach the included brick separator behind the plaque, as shown below. This could be useful in sets where the brick separator might be needed for adjusting the model on display, similar to the screwdriver-like device in 75313 AT-AT, but it seems completely unnecessary here.
The proportional issues with this rendition of the Hulkbuster are immediately noticeable, as there are various areas of concern. The torso has been stretched, the head is recessed too much and the legs are too narrow, which spoils the Hulkbuster's stance. Taken in isolation, some sections feature considerable detail and look superb, but the overall model is poor.
While those inaccuracies are inexcusable, in my opinion, the scale of this model is undoubtedly striking. The figure measures 52cm in height and the biggest LEGO mech to date, comfortably surpassing even 21311 Voltron! In fact, the previous direct-to-consumer Hulkbuster, 76105 The Hulkbuster: Ultron Edition, looks surprisingly small beside its modern counterpart.
The new Hulkbuster was developed in scale with 76206 Iron Man Figure, which slots inside the chest. The models are therefore correctly scaled together, although they also share proportional issues. Ultimately, while the size of the Hulkbuster is impressive, establishing its scale in relation to an unremarkable buildable figure was probably not a wise decision.
Furthermore, larger mechs commonly struggle with articulation because of their weight, leaving little opportunity for functional joints. 76210 Hulkbuster exemplifies this continued problem. The shoulders, elbows, wrists and fingers are articulated, but these alone are insufficient for dynamic posing without any head or waist motion. The static legs are also awkward, although articulated legs were understandably unfeasible.
Official images present the shoulder armour folded against the torso, as shown below. I cannot understand why because these armour panels are adjustable and they should cling to the upper arms, rather than the chest. Also, the pectoral chest plates are vastly oversized and seem quite flat, given they are not angled properly.
Metallic gold highlights are scattered across the Hulkbuster and those surrounding the head are effective. The ingots on the chest look splendid and I like the decorated dome as well, faithfully replicating details from the onscreen mech. Unfortunately, the head is fixed too low between the shoulders, which completely ruins the shape.
Problems continue on the chest. Rather than gradually bowing outwards and presenting the arc reactor proudly at the centre of the torso, the armour actually curves inwards. I do like the trans-opalescent blue Fresnel lens though, which was introduced in trans-clear with 21335 Motorised Lighthouse. This vibrant colour clearly stands out against the surrounding dark red armour.
Pressing the needlessly obvious button above the arc reactor activates a light brick, illuminating the Hulkbuster's power source. As with 76206 Iron Man Figure earlier this year, the light brick is orange and passing through a trans-opalescent blue piece does nothing to disguise its colour. I am surprised that LEGO does not produce a white light brick instead, since that would be much more adaptable.
The reverse makes interesting use of a pearl gold X-wing canopy, with a sticker applied on the underside. While the shape of this canopy approximates the golden panel present onscreen, its size is exaggerated and creates an unnecessarily large gap between the trans-light blue thrust repulsors. However, these repulsors include intricate detail.
Moreover, the repulsors are mounted on hinges, allowing them to move outwards. They never move onscreen and the panel at the centre also opens for unknown reasons. I presume this was simply a result of using the canopy, which includes click hinges. The smaller panel lower on the Hulkbuster's back is more perplexing though. One might assume this gives access to Iron Man's feet when placing the figure inside, but the hatch is really too small.
The opening panels around the shoulders do provide ample access though. They function quite similarly to the onscreen Hulkbuster and the layered design is excellent, closely resembling the source material. However, the interior lacks any mechanical detailing and opening these panels instead reveals the unsightly Technic structure.
Of course, a rigid structure was needed because the interior is almost completely hollow. Light bluish grey 2x2x16 columns are employed to good effect here and the strain on the shoulders is noticeable, although they feel secure. The empty interior is only interrupted by a support which slots underneath 76206 Iron Man Figure, located behind the arc reactor.
Placing the figure inside is fairly simple, as long as the legs are positioned shoulder width apart and the arms are posed by Iron Man's sides. This could be an unusual and appealing means of displaying the Hulkbuster with 76206 Iron Man Figure inside, but the surrounding structure looks unfinished. Once again, some mechanical details could have solved this issue.
The figure appears much improved with only the dome open. I think this arrangement would be reasonable for display and the feature is clever, but certainly not worth such major compromises to the shape of the Hulkbuster. Also, the construction of 76206 Iron Man Figure prevents its legs from folding up. Otherwise, perhaps this figure would slot inside without needing to elongate the torso.
While many Technic elements are covered when the chest panels are closed, the shoulders are less fortunate. The black gears are excusable because they could easily represent gearing from the onscreen Hulkbuster, but the colourful Technic pins and large gaps look awful. As mentioned already, I cannot understand why the shoulder armour is raised above the shoulders rather than being accurately integrated with the upper arms.
The finishing on the sides of the torso also leaves something to be desired, with gaps continuing underneath the shoulder joints. I like the golden bands around the sides though, which roughly correspond with the source material. The metallic gold details on the torso are correctly situated too, but become easily dislodged because they are each attached using one stud.
Both arms narrow around the shoulder and elbow joints, which is disappointing after 71411 The Mighty Bowser demonstrated that similar joints can be disguised. The forearms and hands look superb though, including reinforced metallic gold armour. 242 drum-lacquered gold elements are provided in total, more than any other set.
The exposed joints do provide an extensive range of motion, relative to the substantial weight of these limbs. The shoulder rotation is particularly effective, recalling the joints in 75936 Jurassic Park: T. rex Rampage. However, the wrists are obstructed by the bulky forearm armour, so the hands cannot really be positioned as though firing the palm repulsors.
Light bricks are placed behind the repulsors and activated by pushing the buttons on the back of each hand. Orange light again passes through the trans-opalescent blue elements, although this matches the film because the repulsors are also orange onscreen. Furthermore, the fingers offer ample articulation and can even be clenched into fists.
Among various disproportionate areas, I think the Hulkbuster's midriff is the most apparent. The metallic gold accents on the chest and the belt-like structure around the waist should be directly adjoining, rather than separated. Removing this segment of the torso would greatly enhance the entire model, but doing so would entail significant modification and remove space for 76206 Iron Man Figure.
There are obvious gaps between the waist and the upper legs, which might be understandable if the legs could move. However, they are static, so these gaps should have been closed. I like the texture on the legs though, including accurate metallic gold panels and some mechanical details across their front and sides.
Such detail is missing from between the Hulkbuster's legs, instead leaving two dark bluish grey plates exposed. These are easily visible if the model is displayed on a high shelf and could have been finished with continued texture. Thankfully, some mechanical detail is included behind the armoured knees, which also incorporate repulsors.
These 3x3 round tiles glow in the dark, as shown below. However, the smaller repulsors above the ankles are represented by metallic silver 2x2 dishes, while the glow-in-the-dark pieces are inexplicably placed inside the palm repulsors. I honestly wondered whether I had made an error while building here, but the instructions definitely show metallic silver dishes on the legs.
Otherwise, the shaping around the lower legs looks good, with numerous panels fitted around a Technic core. Some subtle curves are missing and I think solutions to replicate those could have been found, but the general shape is accurate. By contrast, the ankles look dreadful. These lack the thick armour enveloping the onscreen Hulkbuster, which is again confusing without the need for articulation.
The ankles look even worse from behind and the panels intended to cover the internal structure are remarkably fragile. The repulsors on the back of the legs are nicely integrated though, while pearl dark grey ingots decorate stabilising toes on the feet. These correspond with the onscreen Hulkbuster, but the dark bluish grey tiles between them should be gold.
Some metallic gold and pearl gold pieces are included though, recreating the protective actuator covers from the original Hulkbuster. The protruding details on the front of each foot also reflect the source material. However, the whole foot structure should be bulkier and integrated properly with the ankles, rather than relying upon a few scattered panels to disguise this transition.
Overall
LEGO fans are sometimes guilty of hyperbole, particularly when criticising sets. However, I feel comfortable in saying this is among the weakest modern direct-to-consumer sets. The copious major inaccuracies are totally unacceptable at this scale and the Hulkbuster's design is severely compromised to accommodate 76206 Iron Man Figure, which was certainly not worthwhile.
The enormous scale of the Hulkbuster is impressive, although even that creates issues because its sheer weight leaves little opportunity for articulation. Ultimately, this version of the Hulkbuster offers very few positive attributes, which makes the price of £474.99, $549.99 or €549.99 seem even more ridiculous. Compared with previous sets of equivalent price, I am very disappointed with 76210 Hulkbuster.
172 likes
101 comments on this article
This will be the next queer eye, warming the shelves for the next year or so.
This set encapsulates everything currently going wrong at Lego. This is a strangely gigantic and poorly designed item that no one wants. Then given an insulting luxury price that further guarantees no sales. It comes with one lame minifigure and giant stickers despite that price. It serves no purpose other than taking up a page in the Christmas catalog. Smh
As a graphic designer: the box arts is inexcusably cropped. I really love the concept of the model but Tiago Catarino made the perfect review already for this set. The feature to fit 76206 influenced the model design in a bad way. Although I'll take 76105 over this one any day of the week, the sheer size, gold pieces AND rigidity are to be commended.
The proportions are disappointing for such an expensive set. I'll be sticking with the previous UCS Hulkbuster.
I would rather see a Clikits D2C
One of the worst sets ever.
I hope it will make Lego learn.
Sometimes I am overly critical of this site for reviewing new sets with rose-colored glasses, so thanks CapnRex for saying it like it is.
It looks like it soiled its diaper
You know it's bad when even the box art looks kinda bad.
That first image of the built model in the review is pretty damning—I thought maybe it would look better in person than in the reveal images but it actually looks worse! The gaps near the shoulders are really bad and the head is way too recessed. It straight up doesn't look good. A model of this size really draws the eye so having it look anything other than excellent is pretty bad.
@ScholtzTKO said:
"This set encapsulates everything currently going wrong at Lego."
Couldn't have said it better. I feel the same. It's just another overpriced said no one asked for and the many compromises wouldn't make it worthwhile if it were cheaper, either. For that money you really can get a genuine collectible figure with all details and correct proportions...
I have trouble remembering such a critical review here on BS. But I feel it is well deserved, as this is a set with some very major issues. Size is impressive, as is much of the fine detail, but overall it is just way too compromised. In most part just for some rather questionable feature that even requires you to spend even more money to make use of it. This is one set they truly does make me wonder if the good people at Lego actually believe they did a good job on, or if this was a case of "let's just get this over with"....
@Mylenium said:
" @ScholtzTKO said:
"This set encapsulates everything currently going wrong at Lego."
Couldn't have said it better. I feel the same. It's just another overpriced said no one asked for and the many compromises wouldn't make it worthwhile if it were cheaper, either. For that money you really can get a genuine collectible figure with all details and correct proportions...
"
Or a entry level gaming PC. I just checked prices for the US, you can somehow do a i3 10105F/RX 6600 for as low as $533 right now!
@WizardOfOss said:
"I have trouble remembering such a critical review here on BS."
Assault on Hoth got a strongly negative review from Brickset, so these reviews do exist, if not a bit rarely.
On the bright side, the color matching looks great!
Hopefully it means they've fixed their dark red.
All the 2022 budget for DC went to into this probably XD That's why we only got the 4+ set.
But in all seriousness, every review I have seen on Youtube, this thing looks like it is so top heavy and will topple over if they accidentally bump the table. It looks incomplete in a lot of places, and over-detailed in other places, making it look look bulky and bare bones at the same time, with some sections looking out of proportion.
Between the Black Panther bust and this, it seems like Lego are intent on making over-priced dust collectors. In my opinion, the Daily Bugle and Sanctum Sanctorum are much better bang your buck. Considering they have function as well, especially for city builders. And the level of detail and easter-eggs they were designed with, it just seems those sets were made with fans in mind. Considering this is the about the 6th Hulbuster set, I fail to see the appeal with an overdone concept.
And the minifigure inclusion is just lazy. It seems like a last minute tack-on after the complaints of the Black Panther Bust having no minifigures. The design is lazy as well, especially with no arm or leg printing in such an exorbitantly over-priced set.
The difference between this and the other usc model is brutal. I thought it’s some random moc.
This set has numerous problems that are all described here very well. But I'm stuck on the arc reactor represented with a orange-colored light brick and a trans-light blue piece in front that does nothing to change the color, that might be an acceptable solution for a Creator set but for a set that costs this much, inexcusable. I guess they don't want to make a pure white light brick but there's more than enough room inside for a battery pack and some real deal train/Technic lights.
@Isabella_and_Lego_Liker said:
" @Mylenium said:
Or a entry level gaming PC. I just checked prices for the US, you can somehow do a i3 10105F/RX 6600 for as low as $533 right now!"
Alright now we're talking, let's go!
I am a die-hard Iron Man fan and I have spent the past few years slowly hunting down and collecting every minifigure armor variant possible. I'm easily 90% of the way there, at the least. Then I look at this set and realize ... you know what, 100% just isn't worth it.
I was considering getting this and the accompanying set, but I'm just going to stick with the Nano Gauntlet for my Iron Man display.
I was wondering if you had a pic of all the gold parts used in this set if possible?
Very disappointing, and it could have been so great...
That moment when your set is 550 euro and they still run out of budget...
Because really, those legs and arms just scream 'can't get too chunky now, can we?'
And wow, it looks just as bad as it did at first. I like the look of the sheer scale. You could build a small base in that torso! But as a UCS hulkbuster this thing is just...
I mean, it's a good looking titan-sized mech except for the diaper, plate between legs and some unfinished bits. But it just doesn't work as a model of the hulkbuster!
Seeing that cavernous interior I wish we got another mech at this scale that isn't licensed. Just pure creative goodness. And we wouldn't have to worry about inaccuracy so much. Because man, a mech big enough to have an interior would be cool. This just isn't doing it however.
And it's been said before but I'll say it again: deforming a display model for interactivity with a 45 euro model that is sold seperately is not going to make anyone happy. Now it's not even complete. At THAT price. Or look good. Or be worth it once you do use the Iron Man figure.
Has Lego ever modified a set after launch? Given the price point and the negative reviews I think there is a real case for making changes.
I really wanted a UCS Hulkbuster, and would have been willing to part with the money for one...but I am really struggling to justify it given the compromises made to accommodate 76206.
It’s simply a bad design decision. There’s no other way to excuse this. The smart play would have been to make it look better. If a designer wants a feature where the dome opens and you can see an Iron Man on the inside, you include a mini build with the set that is just the upper shoulders/chest/head of Iron Man. That could slot in to the big guy when the head piece and other parts are opened up, with those pieces having appropriate interior detailing.
Problem. Solved. No need to destroy the proportions, no need to incorporate an overpriced extra Iron Man I don’t want to buy. (Anyone else notice that the Iron Man Brick Built Figure is 15.00 more than Miles and Spider-man? Yeah…how ironic.)
This was maybe the worst thing I’ve seen out of LEGO in quite a while. Smells cash grabby to me. It ultimately will not be.
The review is fantastic by the way. Sorry to let my emotion over this thing get in the way of recognizing that from the outset. It does showcase some of what’s good about the set, and there is some. But the negatives far outweighs the positives. As far as I’m concerned that’s rare for LEGO.
Someone should write a comparison article of this set vs the Ransom Fern MOC. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBq8uHADfDY
It's made from 76031 and 76105 combined, and is superior to this set in every way, despite being far cheaper. I'd thoroughly recommend it.
It looks cool, but I don’t know who it was for. We get so many marvel mechs and hulkbusters already, and we got the last D2C one only four years ago, which I can’t recall that one selling too well.
If anything, they should have at least made this the mark 48 instead, because the last D2C was also the mark 44, which was once again only four years ago.
It's disappointing as I feel like a well executed and designed Hulkbuster, even at a high price, would fly off the shelves.
@Manners70 said:
"Has Lego ever modified a set after launch? "
I can recall two occasions.
10213 Shuttle Adventure apparently had a flimsy external tank design, which was fine for the intended 16+ audience. However, when Lego realised it was being given to much younger children to play with, they made it much stronger and revised the set as 10231 Shuttle Expedition. 21303 Wall-E suffered from a poorly designed neck, resulting in a floppy head.
In both cases, Lego made available a parts pack and instructions on how to convert version one of the model to version two.
Honestly terrible. Looks terrible, price is terrible, nobody wants it, only exists to fill a price point. sad.
Small detail, but Tony Stark/Iron Man, being an American who is lazy when it comes to spelling, would spell it "Armor" on the data sheet.
Dude in that very first picture it looks like it’s wearing a diaper!
That is not great.
It gets worse the more I look at it
@Manners70 said:
"Has Lego ever modified a set after launch? Given the price point and the negative reviews I think there is a real case for making changes.
I really wanted a UCS Hulkbuster, and would have been willing to part with the money for one...but I am really struggling to justify it given the compromises made to accommodate 76206."
Wall-E, though that was for structural problems and not poor reviews.
@minishark1000 said:
"This will be the next queer eye, warming the shelves for the next year or so."
While I agree with the prediction, it doesn't give enough credit to the Queer Eye set. I have never seen the show, but I bought the set when it was on discount recently. As a set it is great. Quite in contrast to the Hulkbuster, which is just as bad as a set can get. It does almost everything wrong.
The per portion are all wrong, The shoulder to the arms, hips to the feet, feel like they are made to be more articulate, however they sacrificed the look.
This is supposed to take on the Hulk, it has mass.
As an adult builder, and based on the price, Lego’s target buyer, this would be more of a display piece instead of a play piece.
Too bad I was looking forward to this set, but the pice and the look of it.
Hard pass…
It seems the best part of this set is the brick separator holder behind the plaque. Pointless but quite clever.
I wonder if this is a case where Lego realized how bad the final product was before they released it. And where they then decided to bump up the original price even further to make more money from those who will buy it anyway in order to reduce overall losses with this set.
The brick separator has a stowing position because buyers of this set won't have a zipbag full of these.
I don't see why everyone has to be so negative. I don't think this version of the Landbuster
I MEAN the Hulkspeeder
I MEAN Luke's Hulkbuster
is in any way, shape or form superfluous. Not at all. Now, much as I'd love to create more shelf-space for this, after actually buying the damned thing I just wouldn't have any money left for shelves.
@Robot99 said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
Assault on Hoth got a strongly negative review from Brickset, so these reviews do exist, if not a bit rarely."
Ah okay, though that was released before I knew of the existence of this site. And honestly, compared to this that one wasn't even that bad...
And there sure have been some other pretty bad sets over the years, but those weren't €500+. That's what makes this one alle the more baffling. For a sit like this you'd expect Lego to do the best they can.
@NathanR2015 said:
" @Manners70 said:
"Has Lego ever modified a set after launch? "
I can recall two occasions.
10213 Shuttle Adventure apparently had a flimsy external tank design, which was fine for the intended 16+ audience. However, when Lego realised it was being given to much younger children to play with, they made it much stronger and revised the set as 10231 Shuttle Expedition. 21303 Wall-E suffered from a poorly designed neck, resulting in a floppy head.
In both cases, Lego made available a parts pack and instructions on how to convert version one of the model to version two."
One of the Ant-Man sets was revised after sets had been provided to reviewers. Whether or not that constitutes ‘launched’, I’m not sure, but I believe the pre-revised version was available from some bricks-and-mortar stores. Details of the set and the revisions can be found here: https://brickset.com/article/15503/why-was-76039-ant-man-final-battle-delayed
The Hulkbuster (though that name was a misnomer back in the day) was one of my favorite Iron Man concepts growing up. A pity this one is proving upsetting to so many people.
@CapnRex101 think you might review the Inquisitor Transport Scythe soon? I’ve heard good things about that set, and from the sounds of this review I think you could use the positivity.
Easily skippable IMO. I knew the torso looked off, and the fact that it was designed as such to fit the buildable Iron Man figure is a needless feature. On the other hand, those who buy this kit could possibly mod it to be more accurate - shorten the torso and build out the legs a bit more.
Designed and priced as it is, this ain't it. The Ultron edition is good enough for me. It is quite striking seeing the size differences.
Yikes.
As a kid I would have loved having a large figure piloting an even larger mech, so from that perspective this makes total sense. BUT, no kid will be playing with this, let alone buying it, so who is that function for? No AFOL would choose to compromise the looks so radically to have this 'play feature'.
It will sell in LEGO shops probably, I'm sure there will always be gifts bought for Marvel fans based on the 'most expensive is best' theory.
I feel bad for the designer, who may have been given an impossible mission with this one... and it's ended up looking like the Hulkbuster channeling flabby Thor.
Iron Man Lackluster.
Woah. This might be one of the most negative reviews I’ve seen here in a while. Last one I definitely recall as negative was the 2016 Assault on Hoth, although I recall 2017’s Bus Station was somewhat mixed to negative too.
There's enough Youtubers and Marvel nerds to buy this monstrosity, but the rest of us won't look twice at it without a significant discount
I did not realise before that the Iron Man buildable figure is not included in the set, unbelievable at the price this is that they expect you to fork out even more for the action figure that the compromises in the design was made for!!
Lego really are starting to loose the plot!
If they wanted the gimmick, the build able Iron-man separates easily at the waist thanks to a hidden ball joint connection- then the body of this would only need to accommodate the visible top half of the inner suit. It's a trick that other premium Hulkbusters have used before to make the concept work without completely compromising the body and hip movement of the larger suit.
Not that hip movement was on the table here, lego joints are abysmal on mechs even a small fraction of this thing's size, nothing they currently have can support a lot of weight.
And what is with this 45 degree knee squat lego likes to use when knees are off the table? Who or what stands like that, straight at the hips but knees and ankles bent? It's fake dynamism, since the implied movement doesn't make any sense.
The inaccuracies and poor value aside, I think a big miss on this one is still the size. I cannot think of a place in my house large enough to display anything this tall. As it is my Apollo mission Saturn V Rocket requires the staged display unless I purchased a special case just for the rocket. This would be the same, and quite a space commitment for any collector.
If I got my hands on this for cheap, it would be fun to see if it’s possible to scale things down slightly and redistribute parts to make this more accurate. That seems unlikely though, so I’ll stick to my also inaccurate (but somehow still better than this one) Age of Ultron Hulkbuster.
The target audience for this set is not anyone on this site. It will sell well enough to the hardcore marvel fan and executive crowd as christmas gifts.
I honestly think this is the worst Marvel set LEGO has made. Usually there's some redeeming factor, like good minifigures in a bad set. Even the Black Panther bust is fairly well-designed and not super overpriced when compared to this failure. I hope this is a wake-up call for LEGO. A $500+ Hulkbuster isn't a bad idea and I'm sure it would sell well if it wasn't so ugly and poorly designed. And it's insane that the problems are all in service of making you pay another $40 for an action figure.
It's a no from me as the size of the body and the arms both look strange to me. Plus, the price tag. I am happy with my 76105.
This is a MASSIVE fail
@Wavelength said:
"And what is with this 45 degree knee squat lego likes to use when knees are off the table? Who or what stands like that, straight at the hips but knees and ankles bent?"
Toddlers in nappies stand like that when they soil themselves. So maybe this Hulkbuster is just ‘discharging’ :~P
$590US for this wierdly proportioned overpriced mess if you include the Iron Man figure that it was designed around. For roughly the same price you could get the UCS Razor Crest, or get both the Bugle and Sanctum modulars together, all of which are vastly superior sets and much better value for money.
@christopher94 said:
"(...)
Saturn V Rocket (...)
quite a space commitment (...) "
I see what you did there :-D
It's as if they couldn't make up their minds between aiming it at collectors (accuracy, high price), and making a playable toy (with the 76206 integration). So they endedup with a poor collector's model that's too expensive to be purchased as a toy.
I almost find this quite reassuring.
Lego has produced some small sets that are quite terrible (that Batman/Harley Quinn juniors set, which was just overpriced junk) ... and it's nice to know that, actually, they can also produce really large sets that are also awful.
Given that this is about the 300th Hulkbuster? This just seems so cynical to me. It's a pure cash-grab. We all bought the other Hulkbusters, so now it's time to rush out and buy the larger one (that looks awful, and comes with a sheet of stickers? LOL no).
I only hope Lego hasn't produced too many of them, because I can't see them flying off the shelf.
All I see is many pieces useable in other places.
I was wondering how long it would take Lego to release a big turd among the 18+ sets. No company is perfect...
@Zander said:
" @Wavelength said:
"And what is with this 45 degree knee squat lego likes to use when knees are off the table? Who or what stands like that, straight at the hips but knees and ankles bent?"
Toddlers in nappies stand like that when they soil themselves. So maybe this Hulkbuster is just ‘discharging’ :~P
"
Well, the proportions agree with you - this thing does look like it's wearing a fully loaded diaper. Don't get me wrong, if I were up against the Hulk I'd also want to wear my red shirt and my brown pants, but I wouldn't charge you money for a Lego-set commemorating the event.
@ra226 said:
"It's as if they couldn't make up their minds between aiming it at collectors (accuracy, high price), and making a playable toy (with the 76206 integration). So they endedup with a poor collector's model that's too expensive to be purchased as a toy."
It really reminds me of the Table Football set; something that ultimately shouldn’t have been produced and missed the mark in many regards. Lego is struggling lately.
@ScholtzTKO said:
"This set encapsulates everything currently going wrong at Lego. This is a strangely gigantic and poorly designed item that no one wants. Then given an insulting luxury price that further guarantees no sales. It comes with one lame minifigure and giant stickers despite that price. It serves no purpose other than taking up a page in the Christmas catalog. Smh"
I've been...not defensive of LEGO lately, but perhaps more forgiving of their missteps. Generally assuming that they know best in their field of business and data to back up their design and marketing decisions. And lets not forget, LEGO's had some massive, budget-friendly winners lately -- the Galaxy Explorer reboot and Tallneck, among others, are critically acclaimed sets under 100 USD.
Having said that, this set and Table Football make me wonder if LEGO's beginning to stretch itself too thin. Trying to be all things to all people and overextending in the process. Covid gave them a big bump -- stuck-at-home adults flush with cash were more than happy to spend it on puzzles more interesting than your average jigsaw -- but it's highly debatable if that momentum can be sustained.
I'm not going to make any strong predictions here, because economics is the voodoo of science, but are we on a bubble that's about to burst? Are these $400, $500 sets going to fall off in the near future in favor of more modest sets?
@tm76 said:
"The target audience for this set is not anyone on this site. It will sell well enough to the hardcore marvel fan and executive crowd as christmas gifts."
This is probably the more reasonable take. None of us know LEGO's finances. We don't have numbers on the Hulkbuster's development cost, we won't know the sales figures, etc. These sorts of sets get the full-court press media-wise, but they aren't necessarily LEGO's bread and butter.
For an analogy, PRS Guitars makes a bit deal out of their "Private Stock" guitars -- these are unique pieces that probably cost thousands of dollars. However, I expect the bulk of their business to be the "Standard" and "Core" lines, which retail from ~$600 to just over $1,000. Those just aren't as flashy.
I cant believe they found a way to make a worse UCS hulkbuster
With that price, if it's designed to hold a buildable ironman it should have included one,
Why haven’t they made a white light brick piece, exactly?
It seems so much more versatile than a yellow light, and different coloured bricks could be used to filter it. Saying that I’m no expert in electronics or lighting so I could be wrong.
the new assault on hoth ?
If this has been built by an AFOL or a team on Lego Masters I would call it stunning. But as a commercial product it is sorely lacking
@chrisaw said:
"Why haven’t they made a white light brick piece, exactly?
It seems so much more versatile than a yellow light, and different coloured bricks could be used to filter it."
And that's exactly what they did with their lightbricks in the 70s and 80s. White bulb, transparent pieces for colour. Same with their Light&Sound system that for example came with the almost legendary 6990.
We just have to defeat Thanos and get the incontinence and toilet paper stone back from the gauntlet!
Umm, great parts pack, at a discount?
@minishark1000 said:
"This will be the next queer eye, warming the shelves for the next year or so."
Good. If LEGO ends up applying a nice discount to this set later on, I might buy it and see if I can improve it.
Huge Iron Man fan, really disappointed with this set.
But hey, at least it doesn't have an exclusive minifigure with a nice armor that we didn't have before.
Lego
Now putting profit before quality
Numerous sets now being designed to maximise ROS
Shame
@WizardOfOss said:
"I have trouble remembering such a critical review here on BS. But I feel it is well deserved, as this is a set with some very major issues."
The reviews here tend to overly positive at times, but this one goes right for the achilles heel -- and rightfully so.
@WizardOfOss said:
"This is one set they truly does make me wonder if the good people at Lego actually believe they did a good job on, or if this was a case of "let's just get this over with"...."
Since this is a licensed set, I assume the licensor, Marvel/Disney in this case, had a huge say in this project. I can only imagine how many internal reviews and redesigns it went through to please to licensor, but at some point a product needs to get to market to fulfill a SKU. So, I tend to think that "let's just get this over with" was certainly uttered by someone at LEGO at some point. I'd almost think LEGO overpriced it intentionally, to make sure no one would buy it.
While there are a number of awkward failures of design here, the greatest flaw in my opinion are the two areas of 9x2 studless panels on each side of the chest. On such a detailed model, those huge flat spaces just look incredibly wrong. And it doesn't help that they also serve to stretch out the chest making it even more awkward.
Would have preferred if youwould just be required to remove the legs of the Buildable Iron-Man and make a more scaled torso (and reduce the price somewhat) if you must include that gimmick...form over function, especially at a collector's price tag.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
"Since this is a licensed set, I assume the licensor, Marvel/Disney in this case, had a huge say in this project. I can only imagine how many internal reviews and redesigns it went through to please to licensor, but at some point a product needs to get to market to fulfill a SKU. So, I tend to think that "let's just get this over with" was certainly uttered by someone at LEGO at some point. I'd almost think LEGO overpriced it intentionally, to make sure no one would buy it."
I always wonder how much say the licensor has in it. I mean, there have been a few instances (I think mostly with Star Wars, so also Disney) where Lego released a set before the movie was out, and it turned out their design was substantially off.
Also, go to a shop like Action and see how much licensed Disney crap is sold there. It doesn't seem they actually care that much. As long as you pay the fees you can make whatever terrible product you want.
I'd think it's more likely Lego's own marketing department were adamant on that one feature, as a way to push the sales of that set a bit. If done right it would have benefited Lego, not so much Disney/Marvel.
But obviously I'm just guessing here. I bet they could have made a great documentary of the development process of this set....
The worst sin about this set is by far the price. And boy is it a BIG one. At $500 usd you are up into the realm of the Really Really nice 1/12 scale Die Cast Hulkbasters. The SH Figuarts or Comicave ones. And you are edging into HotToys territory. Why would Lego attempt to go one on one in those spaces? At the others prices?
@WizardOfOss said:
"I always wonder how much say the licensor has in it. I mean, there have been a few instances (I think mostly with Star Wars, so also Disney) where Lego released a set before the movie was out, and it turned out their design was substantially off."
True, but you have to take into account that the development of a product roughly starts about two years before it hits stores, meaning toy companies are always working of conceptual art and early drafts of a script. During this development time, a lot can change to a movie or series, especially due to studio interference. That's how we wind up with LEGO sets of scenes that were ultimately cut from the movie or heavily altered.
@WizardOfOss said:
"Also, go to a shop like Action and see how much licensed Disney crap is sold there. It doesn't seem they actually care that much. As long as you pay the fees you can make whatever terrible product you want."
Also true, but that isn't premium product. Sometimes just a random thing with a logo or artwork slapped onto it. However, when it comes to figurines, action figures, dolls, or premium products, like expensive LEGO sets, I'm willing to bet there's a team of product managers overseeing those. Licensors always have to give their final approval before a product is being manufactured. So someone somewhere in an office at Disney signed off on those LEGO sets that deviate heavily from what we ultimately see in theaters or on our TVs. However, that doesn't explain everything that's wrong with this Hulkbuster set.
@WizardOfOss said:
"II'd think it's more likely Lego's own marketing department were adamant on that one feature, as a way to push the sales of that set a bit. If done right it would have benefited Lego, not so much Disney/Marvel."
If done right, everyone would've benefitted, because with a € 500 product there'll be a big licensor fee. If a set doesn't sell, it's unlikely LEGO will do a lot more of those, meaning Disney will miss out on a big, fat cheque. And if there's one thing Disney likes...
@WizardOfOss said:
"IBut obviously I'm just guessing here. I bet they could have made a great documentary of the development process of this set...."
I'm sure we'll never get to hear the ins and outs of this, because Disney is notorious for protecting its brands.
you know the more I look at this, the more I don't like...
I have the 76105: The Hulkbuster: Ultron Edition and I was hoping this one would top that.
and it just, doesn't...
Now if they had matched the fandom pic closer and lost some of the articulation, I would be cool with that. But they just fell short. Sorry Lego.
Initially, I thought it looked pretty okay apart from the torso. But the price already left me completely uninterested. Might pick it up as a parts pack for € 200 or so. They'll go on sale like Vidyo, reading all the comments here. Probably already coming Black Friday.
@tm76 said:
"The target audience for this set is not anyone on this site. It will sell well enough to the hardcore marvel fan and executive crowd as christmas gifts."
Is this an actual group though? I feel like people make up groups of people sometimes as justification.
This is ridiculously priced. Its almost the same price as the Titanic was (just a 100$ difference from last years price). So who will buy this? Lego should be making sets that are actually desired rather than spring these surprises on us. What a waste.
The decision to mangle this set to accommodate an unremarkable build-a-figure is absolutely baffling. That idea should've been nixed on the drawing board.
That and the £500 price point make this an easy pass.
@Fauch said:
"the new assault on hoth ?"
Question is, can we come up with a name as good as Insult on Hoth?
I think it would make a very interesting "how-to" article here to see if/how the hulkbuster can be modified to have nicer proportions and details.
@SearchlightRG said:
" @Fauch said:
"the new assault on hoth ?"
Question is, can we come up with a name as good as Insult on Hoth?"
@ComfySofa came up with the winner in my book: "The Lackluster"
The problem is that many who criticize it here will still buy it. We should all vote with our wallets.
Currently:
12 members own this set
464 members want this set
@RonnyN said:
"The problem is that many who criticize it here will still buy it. We should all vote with our wallets.
Currently:
12 members own this set
464 members want this set"
It's worth putting those numbers in perspective though. Here are some other recent premium sets' Own/Want:
21337 19/766
75331 727/2101
71411 609/1458
10303 1222/2776
Of course, the 'Owned' numbers are skewed because it's not out yet, but the 'Want' seems to show a distinct lack of interest. Especially since you can want a set even if you have zero into to purchase it someday.
@SearchlightRG said:
" @Fauch said:
"the new assault on hoth ?"
Question is, can we come up with a name as good as Insult on Hoth?"
The Shelfduster.
This set’s biggest design flaw is that it’s yet another Hulkbuster.
They could’ve done a Daily Bugle-ish-sized Galactus accompanied by some of his heralds, fighting the FF extended family, and maybe have thrown in the Fantasticar and a tiny little Ultimate Nullifier for Mr Fantastic to wave in Galactus’s face for good measure. Properly executed, we’d be saying “Shut up and take my money!”
As I’ve said, this is a wasted opportunity.
Whoever at LEGO thought this was a good idea must have had Tommy Wiseau levels of self delusion.
@TheBrickshipyard said:
" @Nth_Brick said:
" @ScholtzTKO said:
"This set encapsulates everything currently going wrong at Lego. This is a strangely gigantic and poorly designed item that no one wants. Then given an insulting luxury price that further guarantees no sales. It comes with one lame minifigure and giant stickers despite that price. It serves no purpose other than taking up a page in the Christmas catalog. Smh"
I've been...not defensive of LEGO lately, but perhaps more forgiving of their missteps. Generally assuming that they know best in their field of business and data to back up their design and marketing decisions. And lets not forget, LEGO's had some massive, budget-friendly winners lately -- the Galaxy Explorer reboot and Tallneck, among others, are critically acclaimed sets under 100 USD.
Having said that, this set and Table Football make me wonder if LEGO's beginning to stretch itself too thin. Trying to be all things to all people and overextending in the process. Covid gave them a big bump -- stuck-at-home adults flush with cash were more than happy to spend it on puzzles more interesting than your average jigsaw -- but it's highly debatable if that momentum can be sustained.
I'm not going to make any strong predictions here, because economics is the voodoo of science, but are we on a bubble that's about to burst? Are these $400, $500 sets going to fall off in the near future in favor of more modest sets?"
Valid analysis and I think you are right. Lego exes, marketing team, and designers missed the memo that the pandemic - spend the extra stimulus $$ on any lego set and price point - is truly over. In fact, with everything going on in the world and a recession practically arrived, consumers have far less discretionary spending. I could argue they are going into debt just to buy essentials.
Yet, Lego carries on releasing even crappier models, like this hulk-diaper-buster (seems to be the consensus so time to coin it), with the expectation (hope?) Lego fans will keep buying it. That's crazy presumptuous and out of touch.
And like you pointed out, Lego shoots themselves in the marketing foot when they release killers sets for excellent value such as the Galaxy Explorer. A non licensed set to boot that can be had for $75 at some retailers! They remind us all how far they have fallen from their creative heydays. I'll go one step further and argue the GWP sets, solely intended to promote sales of bigger sets, are more creatively designed than anything in the main line ups!
In summary, I think a combination of factors has brought us to this sad point of Hulk-diaper-buster sets with a price similar to a desktop computer or even a refrigerator. A) Lego Greed, B) consumers who showed no discretion in Lego purchasing habits and C) a capitulation to intellectual properties (IPs) that has almost completely replaced original and in-house Lego themes.
Where are the defenders from a few weeks ago who said just because some of the AFOL's don't like this set, we believe it shouldn't exist period? Again, the problem is SOMEHOW this set does exist, regardless of how we feel. They are a lot quieter now.
The consensus is in, this hulkbuster set mega-sucks and Lego needs critics more than ever to help refine their products. I sincerely hope Lego gets to sit on this unsold inventory in a painful, financial manner. They deserve it.
I'd rather celebrate winner Lego sets with the community, but that is becoming less frequent. The Hulk-diaper-buster is a loser, represents a bad trend for Lego, and I will not pretend otherwise. "
Some will doubtless have disagreements, but I personally don't think there's much more to be said. Maybe we're all just a bunch of lunatics and my second comment is right -- as something of a LEGO aficionado going on 20 years, TLG has a pretty strong history to lean back on.
That doesn't stop stuff like this, the UCS AT-AT and Razor Crest, and Table Football from feeling an aw
How did this get past the planning stage? Surely once the differences from the souce material required to accommodate 76206 were evident that feature should have been scrapped and the whole thing sent back to the drawing board.
I appreciate that there will be some people who think it looks incredible and love it. There will also be some people who think being able to include 76206 is a great feature and really makes it for them. The will also be people who won't baulk at spending £470+ even if it doesn't look like the source material.
I wonder however how many people did TLG imagine might fit all three of those criteria....
@MutoidMan said:
"This set’s biggest design flaw is that it’s yet another Hulkbuster.
They could’ve done a Daily Bugle-ish-sized Galactus accompanied by some of his heralds, fighting the FF extended family, and maybe have thrown in the Fantasticar and a tiny little Ultimate Nullifier for Mr Fantastic to wave in Galactus’s face for good measure. Properly executed, we’d be saying “Shut up and take my money!”
As I’ve said, this is a wasted opportunity."
Ah, man. Yeah, a Galactus at this size? Even without a minifig, or just a re-issue of the CMF Watcher? I would pay good money for that.
Twas 00.01 in UK on launch day, so I thought I'd take a look and....................No queue to rush and buy this on Lego.com.
No holding page
No clicking refresh
Just.....tumbleweed.
(No I didn't buy)
So with this have we got enough Hulkbusters now? Like, they’ve started getting disappointing to people so can we do without at least one popping up in every wave for, maybe, a couple years or so?
@WizardOfOss said:
" @Robot99 said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
Assault on Hoth got a strongly negative review from Brickset, so these reviews do exist, if not a bit rarely."
Ah okay, though that was released before I knew of the existence of this site. And honestly, compared to this that one wasn't even that bad..."
Insult of Hoth was just a reissue of past sets with only 2 new builds one of which they didn't even bother to get the correct number of fins on the iconic generator. It's worse than the Lackluster.
@Ridgeheart said:
" @SearchlightRG said:
" @Fauch said:
"the new assault on hoth ?"
Question is, can we come up with a name as good as Insult on Hoth?"
The Shelfduster."
Hothbuster.
BIONICLE handled the concept of a small poseable action figure fitting inside a giant mech back in 2002 for just $42. Nexo Knights tackled it in 2018 for $40. Spending $590 for two sets with the exact same concept, except it's not even a play set anymore, is ridiculous.