Home› Collecting
Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

75827 - Ghostbusters HQ (Coming In January 2016?)

AdeelZubairAdeelZubair Member Posts: 2,704
edited September 2015 in Collecting

Apparently Just2Good has a reliable source confirming that LEGO will be releasing a Ghostbusters HQ in the style of Haunted House (10228.) It will be released 1st January 2016 and will have 4600 pieces and cost $350.

Apparently it will NOT be replacing the 2016 Modular Building and will NOT be based on the new movie. I guess there could be a reason to not get the LEGO Dimensions packs just for the new molded hair and printed arms as well as the Slimer and Stay Puft packs.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGcywvMPU_I


The news that a LEGO Ghostbusters HQ is coming excites me however what I don't understand is the price and piece count; it should be halve of that unless it will have a fully detailed exterior and interior like The Simpsons House (71006) with tiled floors. This type of set should be a modular style building and cost halve the price of a Modular Building. I don't get why it needs to be twice the size.

***Photograph Shown Is NOT The Final Product; It's A MOC By Sergio512.

TXLegoguykhmellymeljust2good
«134567…17

Comments

  • Lego_StarLego_Star Member Posts: 2,144
    edited September 2015
    Didn't @drdavewatford make a rather fine moc of Ghostbusters HQ too? I seem to remember seeing a nice display in Hamleys a long time ago. :o)
  • dougtsdougts Member Posts: 4,110
    That piece count seems surprisingly large, even at that price point 
    FollowsClosely
  • BumblepantsBumblepants Member Posts: 7,637
    Weird. I get that there are a lot of Ghostbuster fans who would buy a $50 Ecto-1 and that was a great set. That said, I find it hard to believe there is a big market for a $350 building to park it in. People balked at a $200 Town Hall (speaking to RRP, not aftermarket here). Hard to think $350 will sit well. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
    madforLEGOMrJ_NYdougtskiki180703Pitfall69SumoLegoandhe
  • BastaBasta Member Posts: 1,259
    Adzbadboy said:

    The news that a LEGO Ghostbusters HQ is coming excites me however what I don't understand is the price and piece count; it should be halve of that unless it will have a fully detailed exterior and interior like The Simpsons House (71006) with tiled floors. This type of set should be a modular style building and cost halve the price of a Modular Building. I don't get why it needs to be twice the size.
    Modulars are great and all, but larger sets are very much welcomed by me.
    I hope it's true and we are geting a 4600 piece set. Obviously TLG will cram a 1000 pieces worth of fluff inside it, but the other 3600 should come together to make a very large detailed exterior which is a big win IMO.
  • JayEmJayEm Member Posts: 62
    edited September 2015
    The third largest set of all time, exceeded only by the Taj Mahal and Falcon?

    I will believe this when I see it!
  • DawnDawn Member Posts: 237
    That would be a very nice addition to many collection and/or city layout. I would take a nicely detailed $350 building any day over a Helicarrier.
  • iso3200iso3200 Member Posts: 2,065
    Jan 1st could be shaping up to have a lot going on for sure. I know that next years modular will be released on that day (no surprise as last year) and it has a UK street price of £119.95 - but have no more details. I was also told about a UCS release for Jan 1st but was expecting the SW Snowspeeder - not this.

    There's certainly been enough interest in the original HQ - but that's a whole lot of lolly to cough up. Does seem rather big. Will be interesting to see how this turns out.
  • playwellplaywell Member Posts: 2,309
    Wow I have been waiting for Lego to do another super set as in 4000+ parts but thought it had to be Star Wars or another world building. Ghostbusters HQ is not a surprise other than them trying to justify rejecting it in ideas only to make it, there is a very long list now of idea projects being made outside of ideas. But like other have said how is this not a Simpsons size set.  
  • iso3200iso3200 Member Posts: 2,065
    ^I thought the same ;-)
    Pitfall69SumoLego
  • TXLegoguyTXLegoguy Member Posts: 125
    If this is true, it will be a must buy for me.  But I will wait for more pics and details to be sure.
  • RailsRails Member Posts: 153
    Is it normal for rumours of upcoming sets to have a set number as well? Does it add an air legitimacy or have people just been known to make up a random number as well? $350 would translate to a £270 UK price if going by the Helicarrier & I don't think I am a big enough fan of Ghostbusters to spend that much on a set.
  • dragon114dragon114 Member Posts: 642
    this will be a day one set for me
  • BastaBasta Member Posts: 1,259
    edited September 2015
    SMC said:
    Ghostbusters HQ is not a surprise other than them trying to justify rejecting it in ideas only to make it, there is a very long list now of idea projects being made outside of ideas. But like other have said how is this not a Simpsons size set.  
    To be fair to TLG, I think it would be pretty hard to not expect that they would be toying with heaps of different set ideas especially those based around exsisting IP's. So the chances that an IDEAS project has or is being toyed with by TLG is pretty high IMO.
    dougts
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    I'm not sure I'd be that bothered about getting it at that price. The car displays nicely on it's own. I'm not enough of a fan to want the building at the scale that seems to be. DS makes sense with so many little vignettes in one big set. I'm not so sure about this one. I'll wait until I see pictures.
  • BACbrixBACbrix Member Posts: 655
    This has to be inflated. Seriously 4600 pieces and only $350? This seems false IMO. WE could easily get a building but not that size with that many pieces.
    FollowsClosely
  • samiam391samiam391 Member Posts: 4,492
    I have a feeling that LEGO wouldn't make one of the largest sets ever a ghostbusters themes set.

    I'm calling rumor on this one.
    BumblepantsPitfall69SumoLegoVorpalRyuhkcrazy88andhe
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Member Posts: 10,791
    I would not mind seeing it, but have to wonder if LEGO is just leaking silly stuff out there now to see who reports it.
    It is weird, seeing there no other rumors of a GB line (which then would make this building being released make sense), was this really due to an Idea, or is this another 'we had one planned this whole time' type of thing?
    Even at 350 USD though I have to admit Id likely buy one, even if no discount.

    VorpalRyu
  • DiggydoesDiggydoes Member Posts: 1,079
    Maybe it comes with a minifig-scale stay puft marshmallow man,that would at least explain the piece-count! Boy that would be awesome!!!
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor Member Posts: 3,937
    This would sell, a lot.

    This would also skyrocket the Ecto-1.
  • pharmjodpharmjod Member Posts: 2,916
    I think this could be really cool, but I will believe it when I see it.
    madforLEGOjuggles7
  • Bosstone100Bosstone100 Member Posts: 1,431
    I'll buy.
  • JBricks27JBricks27 Member Posts: 678
    I think a picture of the "BIG" Ben was leaked and the source mistook it for the ghostbusters HQ.
    dougts
  • YodaliciousYodalicious Member Posts: 1,366
    The numbers make me scratch my head on this one. $350 and 4,600? Both seem high for what is essentially a building. It may not be a modular, but it's very much the same style, so comparing it to those would make this huge at that many pieces. 

    Taj Mahal is a building too, but this seems like a strange choice for something that big. Especially if it's based off the old movie. Sure the movie has cult following status, but it isn't exactly new and definitely doesn't have the status of the original Star Wars trilogy.

    I'm a Ghostbusters fan and would be in at $150, even $200, but $350 might push me out. That's a lot for a subject I like, but don't obsess over like the Star Wars geek in me. 
    Pitfall69
  • playwellplaywell Member Posts: 2,309
    Just2Good is reliable, Lego have made D2Cs with no other sets (Simpsons) and Dimensions has added new molds that could be needed. The only thing that seems odd is the size/cost.
  • binaryeyebinaryeye Member Posts: 1,831
    Adzbadboy said:
    The news that a LEGO Ghostbusters HQ is coming excites me however what I don't understand is the price and piece count; it should be halve of that unless it will have a fully detailed exterior and interior like The Simpsons House (71006) with tiled floors. This type of set should be a modular style building and cost halve the price of a Modular Building. I don't get why it needs to be twice the size.
    I don't understand your reasoning, here. Why should it be half the size of a modular? Surely it would need to fit the Ecto-1, which I believe is about nine studs wide. The door in the image you've posted looks to be only eight studs wide, so a model that would work with the car would need to be larger. As it is, the model in the image looks to be 22 wide and 36 deep at the base (though the depth is difficult to determine). A half-size modular with a 10-wide door would have only three studs to either side of the door, which wouldn't look good at all.
    BACbrix said:
    This has to be inflated. Seriously 4600 pieces and only $350? This seems false IMO. WE could easily get a building but not that size with that many pieces.
    Parisian Restaurant has almost 2500 pieces for $160. At that rate, 4600 pieces would be less than $300. Obviously, the license would add some cost, but it doesn't seem that far-fetched.

    That said, I'll believe this when I see it. Ghostbusters doesn't seem like a property that LEGO would risk a $350 set on.
    madforLEGO
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Administrator Posts: 6,755
    edited September 2015
    Lego_Star said:
    Didn't @drdavewatford make a rather fine moc of Ghostbusters HQ too?
    Thanks, @Lego_Star! I'm extremely proud to say that my version (below) served as inspiration for Sergio's fine effort which went on to garner 10,000 votes on LEGO Ideas. More pics can be found at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/drdavewatford/albums/72157638098172335



    I think a 4,600-piece version of the Ghostbusters HQ is highly unlikely for a number of reasons, but it'd be very cool if true...
    Lego_StarMrGudzPitfall69hkcrazy88
  • dragon114dragon114 Member Posts: 642
    wonder if it will include the ecto-1
  • prevereprevere Member Posts: 2,923
    The only thing that gives me a sliver of hope that this could happen is that LEGO actually did make a huge Kwik-Mart.
  • Rsa33Rsa33 Member Posts: 156
    Interesting...the price and piece count is still less than sergios model, I wonder how it'll look...

    Also interesting will be if and how many exclusive minifigs come with it.

  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Administrator Posts: 6,755
    Paperballpark said:
    I call TRUE.

    Why? well, go to this URL, and see what it replaces my placeholder text with in the URL...

    http://shop.lego.com/en-GB/This-is-placeholder-text-75827?p=75827

    That's right: "Firehouse Headquarters"

    Ingenious!

    :-)

    D.
    MorkMan
  • Lego_StarLego_Star Member Posts: 2,144
    ^ WE GOT ONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    :o)
    MorkManprevereGothamConstructionCogmonkey76catwrangler
  • iso3200iso3200 Member Posts: 2,065
    The same goes for 10251 (Expert 1), 10252 (Expert 2), 10253 (Expert 3). I believe 10251 or 10253 is the new modular.

    75098 shows as Star-Wars-Direct-Confidential


  • danstraindepotdanstraindepot Member Posts: 172
    Don't forget about Orion Pax's awesome MOC of this too.  Check out his interior detail:


    LEGO Ecto-1GhostbustersHook and Ladder 8 New YorkFirestation LEGO GHOSTBUSTERS ORION PAX ECTO-1ECTOPLASMASTAY PUFT

    He has several more shots on his website.
    Rsa33catwranglerAmanda1983
  • PaperballparkPaperballpark Member Posts: 4,268
    I've posted a list of Minecraft, Mixels and Technic set names in another thread.
  • prevereprevere Member Posts: 2,923
    With 4,600 pieces, there better be a Twinkie in there.
    pharmjodkiki180703RevBluesPitfall69gmonkey76brickupdatecatwrangler
  • BillybrownBillybrown Member Posts: 748
    prevere said:
    With 4,600 pieces, there better be a Twinkie in there.
    If not then just buy a box of them from B&M's for £1.49 ;-)
    preverekiki180703
  • prevereprevere Member Posts: 2,923
    LEGO might as well include one. It's got a shelf life of 9 years.
    Rsa33kiki180703Pitfall69catwrangler
  • paul_mertonpaul_merton Member Posts: 2,967
    Hmm, I'm not sure it's wise to manipulate URL paths to discover information that has not been made intentionally visible to the public.

    Sure, the information is ultimately publicly visible, but it does not appear to be by intention. In a similar way, exploiting an SQL injection vulnerability to steal information from a database is unquestionably illegal, even though the vulnerability effectively makes the information (unintentionally) publicly accessible.

    But the most important thing to be aware of is ... there's a new Ghostbusters set confirmed!!!!! :D
    JELJ1SWatfordScottyM
  • PaperballparkPaperballpark Member Posts: 4,268
    @paul_merton An SQL injection is different, as it accesses information that can then be permanently changed in the database by the user, potentially causing a lot of problems for the database.

    While changing a URL is indeed accessing information, it obviously isn't possible for that to be changed. I can't, for example, make that URL re-direct anywhere, or anything like that.

    Incidentally, there was an xkcd comic a few years ago about SQL injection. :)
  • paul_mertonpaul_merton Member Posts: 2,967
    edited September 2015
    ^ No, that's wrong. Exploiting SQL injection to gain unauthorised access to data that is not intended to be publicly visible is no different. Just because you can't change anything does not mean it's okay to access it without authorisation. For example, if a vulnerable web application uses a read-only account to access the database, the attacker cannot possibly use SQL injection to change anything, but he can still use SQL injection to view the contents of the database. That's still SQL injection - the term does not refer to being able to inject content into the database, it's about being able to inject arbitrary statements or fragments into the SQL query that the application then tries to execute in a trusted context.

    Using your method to discover as-yet unrevealed set names could still amount to unauthorised access in the context of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the later Police and Justice Act 2006 and Serious Crime Act 2007.

    But on the other hand, it's not like you're downloading people's passwords, so maybe nobody will mind (probably!). For starters, I doubt TLG would want bad publicity over something so trivial (see AT&T vs Weev for lolz). Either way, as web application security testing has been my profession for a couple of decades, I am very mindful of the law and this is not something I would risk trying without permission.

    (ps. sorry for polluting this thread with technobabble and law. I shall say no more!)
    catwrangler
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Member Posts: 10,791
    edited September 2015
    surprise surprise the, the page appears to be gone or at least it is not updating the URL
    .
    Pitfall69hkcrazy88andhe
  • PaperballparkPaperballpark Member Posts: 4,268
    edited September 2015
    I think the key difference is that SQL injection is effectively 'hacking' their site to try to gain access to something that isn't normally accessable.

    Changing URLs however, is not interfering with their site at all - it's changing things in the web browser, which they can't control. It's the difference between server-side (their database) and client-side (the website).

    I may not be quite as technical as you, but I'm pretty sure there's some kind of fundamental difference there.

    The best analogy I can think of is that SQL injection is like picking the lock of a door to see what's in the house, whereas changing the URL is like having a look through the window in the door while you're knocking.

    To sum it up: I'm pretty damn sure that typing URLs into a browser's address bar is not illegal. :)

    Anyway, like you, I shall say no more.
    rock99rockkiki180703pharmjod
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,331
    Just about to finish buikding the 5700 pcs hq2 so mixed emotions aboutvthis one.
    Rsa33
  • paul_mertonpaul_merton Member Posts: 2,967
    edited September 2015
    Paperballpark said:
    To sum it up: I'm pretty damn sure that typing URLs into a browser's address bar is not illegal. :)
    SQL injection can be exploited by typing a URL into a browser's address bar.

    (Sorry, couldn't resist pointing that out! Definitely bowing out now. See y'all at STEAM :))
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    madforLEGO said:
    surprise surprise the, the page appears to be gone or at least it is not updating the URL
    .
    Still updating the name for me.
  • Rsa33Rsa33 Member Posts: 156
    Agreed @cheshirecat, this leaves mixed emotions as well for me...

    i'll prolly still buy it haha ;)
  • Russell844Russell844 Member Posts: 2,424
    I am comflicted on this. On one hand, I would love to have this. On the other hand, I own a custom built HQ that I bought off of a former LUG mate when he needed to get out of LEGO, and I paid him about what this is rumored to be going for.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon

Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.