Lord of the Rings Ongoing Discussion

[TheDoctor]

2 hours ago, Roebuck said:

We do?!

I know the goat mould was damaged at least so they could not use it, but I do not think that normally is what happens to moulds so that all(?) the LOTR moulds where destroyed seems unlikely to me

Yup, any 'unique' moulds that were licensed or too specialised to be used again were destroyed. (Costs a lot to store the steel moulds)
That's why Gimli's helmet is slightly different and we didn't see the return of Elrond's crowned hair-piece or Legolas's original (more accurate) hair-piece.

Only 'useful' moulds were retained (One Ring, Hobbit hair, Gandalf beard, Thorin hair and I think that's about all!)

9 hours ago, wesker said:

The Witch-King didn't appear in this location either. It makes sense to include the Mouth of Sauron for the same reasons you suggested incorporating the interior of Mount Doom into the tower. If there are no future plans to remake the Black Gate or explore Mordor any further, where else do you put this character? At least the Witch-King has other potential set options he can appear in for the future.

And again just for me personally I'd much rather see the Witch-King released in a set alongside an armored Eowyn to recreate their duel. That was their defining moment in the trilogy and its not the same having one character without the other. And while he could hypothetically appear in multiple sets he isn't a character I need several duplicate minifigures of. That's what the generic Nazgul are for.

This is true, but The Mouth wasn't even in the theatrical release of the film! (I remember much discussion at the time about his rumoured inclusion in The Black Gate)

People associate the Witch-King with the Fell Beast and think of them circling Barad-Dur.

As for multiples, LEGO will want to get their money's worth from a newly developed element.
(Just like the suspiciously Sauron-looking mace from the new D&D minifigs)

Edited April 8 by TheDoctor

[MAB]

3 hours ago, Cyprinus said:

Well, they used new moulds for all the pieces (aside from the One Ring - as that one is still in use). Why would they do it if the old ones were around?

Possibly due to their location. A lot of the new, individually bagged parts in 2012-14 were coming from the factory in China. If they are now manufacturing the equivalent parts in Europe or Mexico, then it makes sense to have new moulds made.

[mirkwoodspiders]

14 hours ago, wesker said:

I don't think we'll get any big locations from the Hobbit trilogy outside of Bag End potentially including the dwarves. The only two that would really stand a chance of being made are Lake-town and Erebor but neither of them are anywhere near as iconic as the majority of locations seen in the LOTR trilogy.

If the theme is successful enough to touch on the Hobbit films I can definitely see a giant brick built Smaug set being on the table.

For me, Harry Potter has set the bar for a strong licensed theme (perhaps overstaying its welcome at this point) with great D2Cs being released consistently. I don't think the market for LOTR is a great comparison, but boy would it be great if LOTR turned into something similar.

[upliftingbricks]

10 hours ago, Roebuck said:

We do?!

I know the goat mould was damaged at least so they could not use it, but I do not think that normally is what happens to moulds so that all(?) the LOTR moulds where destroyed seems unlikely to me

According to DuckBricks Lego Factory visit video a couple of months back, mouds are kept for 5 years after there last use with exceptions being rare so LOTR unique ones likely long gone. Thats not to say they cant recreate them like they did the Goat.

[Roebuck]

23 minutes ago, upliftingbricks said:

According to DuckBricks Lego Factory visit video a couple of months back, mouds are kept for 5 years after there last use with exceptions being rare so LOTR unique ones likely long gone. Thats not to say they cant recreate them like they did the Goat.

Have not seen the video yet, but that sound odd So when a part is gone for more than 5 years they must remake the mould to get it back?! I am sure there are a lot of parts that have a comeback after more than 5 years, e.g. the horse barding that disappeared in 2014 before it came galloping back with LKC in 2022

[upliftingbricks]

1 hour ago, Roebuck said:

Have not seen the video yet, but that sound odd So when a part is gone for more than 5 years they must remake the mould to get it back?! I am sure there are a lot of parts that have a comeback after more than 5 years, e.g. the horse barding that disappeared in 2014 before it came galloping back with LKC in 2022

Im by no means an expert and just going off the video but after 5 years parts can apply for exception from the rule but they are rarely granted (I don't know what rare means in terms of numbers) so its possible the Barding was one of the exceptions. Though from Lego POV I guess they have to weigh it up what storing a mold costs (apparently expensive) compared to redesigning (even if basically the same as old version)

Wasn't the factory visit video it was this video he published around same time as factory one
 

 

[Altair1]

They destroyed Smaug's mold?? No way!! I am glad I bought the Lonely Mountain set at the time, I love this dragon, much better than the one in the D&D set which just came out.

[Black Falcon]

3 hours ago, Roebuck said:

Have not seen the video yet, but that sound odd So when a part is gone for more than 5 years they must remake the mould to get it back?! I am sure there are a lot of parts that have a comeback after more than 5 years, e.g. the horse barding that disappeared in 2014 before it came galloping back with LKC in 2022

Maybe they consider how likely it is that the mould will be used on the future again. I mean, for many 4+ Parts or special parts designed for cars, especially technic ones I can see why they would do that, since I guess it won´t be that likely to need it again anytime soon. For other parts, like Animal moulds I would guess it does make sense to keep them, since it is more likely to use them again. For example we had the chmpanzee mould in two minifigure series in 2011 and 2012 and it was used again in 2022 for the Jane Godall Tribute. I mean, ther is no way they made a new mould just for that GWP.

14 minutes ago, Altair1 said:

They destroyed Smaug's mold?? No way!! I am glad I bought the Lonely Mountain set at the time, I love this dragon, much better than the one in the D&D set which just came out.

Well both are quite different though, with one beeing brickbuilt and the other one build from moulded parts. But anyways, I would guess we would see a new smaug if they ever bring him back.

[kuzyabricks]

3 hours ago, Roebuck said:

Have not seen the video yet, but that sound odd So when a part is gone for more than 5 years they must remake the mould to get it back?! I am sure there are a lot of parts that have a comeback after more than 5 years, e.g. the horse barding that disappeared in 2014 before it came galloping back with LKC in 2022

The new one is most likely a new mould then. Unfortunately they can't keep them around it, it would be too expensive

[Roebuck]

10 hours ago, upliftingbricks said:

Im by no means an expert and just going off the video but after 5 years parts can apply for exception from the rule but they are rarely granted (I don't know what rare means in terms of numbers) so its possible the Barding was one of the exceptions. Though from Lego POV I guess they have to weigh it up what storing a mold costs (apparently expensive) compared to redesigning (even if basically the same as old version)

Wasn't the factory visit video it was this video he published around same time as factory one

Thanks will look at it when I get the time It would make sense why the goat mould was lost, but up until now my understanding was that it was an exception not the rule I know parts that are not in production cost more of the budget of a set/theme to bring back, but if this is the case then they should be a lot more expensive unless remaking a mould cost little (less than they spend on storing them, strange if they just sit on a shelf unless they need a good oil-bath every Sunday )

[Bugbot20082]

On 4/5/2024 at 6:32 PM, BenA said:

I read somewhere that if they were real, Barad Dûr would be around 1500ft tall, and Orthanc would be around 150ft.  That got me thinking, could the GWP could be an 'architecture-style' version of Orthanc - miniature, but still roughly in scale with Barad Dûr?  That way they could be displayed together, and Lego could claim to have given us "the Two Towers" . In support of my - admittedly highly unlikely - theory, I think BrickClicker did describe the GWP as 'an 18+ display set' - key word 'display', not 'play'.  And even more tenuously, if I remember right, didn't one of the maps in Rivendell incorrectly show both towers - could that have been a hint!??? 

I was going to say this too and i like the idea. If I was the designer I would do this. It could have an architecture style base and consumer feedback could be used to judge weather there is appetite for a mini series for the rest of the iconic locations for adult collectors alongside the brick heads. 
 

The scale model would illustrate the size of the ‘real’ tower compared to the one we see more often in the context of people, it would definitely enhance the build without being painful to miss out on for those that can’t get it. 
 

Given the know measurements would  the towers be in scale With microfigures? Like the UCS Hogwarts or Helicarrier ?

Edited April 9 by Bugbot20082

[MAB]

On 4/5/2024 at 6:32 PM, BenA said:

I read somewhere that if they were real, Barad Dûr would be around 1500ft tall, and Orthanc would be around 150ft.  That got me thinking, could the GWP could be an 'architecture-style' version of Orthanc - miniature, but still roughly in scale with Barad Dûr?  That way they could be displayed together, and Lego could claim to have given us "the Two Towers" 

They can say they have done The Two Towers by doing just Barad Dur. We already have Orthanc.

[RichardGoring]

1 hour ago, Bugbot20082 said:

Given the know measurements would  the towers be in scale With microfigures? Like the UCS Hogwarts or Helicarrier ?

I can't remember the rumoured size, but I think it's about 1m tall, which would make each 1cm of the model about 15ft of the real tower. So Nanofigures would be 2-3x too large. But then, there are many parts where LEGO elements don't allow you perfect scaling at this size. The Hogwarts UCS castle has loads of variation of scale in specific details, although I don't think it generally detracts from the overall model.

[hikouki]

Does Lego destroy moulds because they are not planning on making those parts anymore, or because of licensing issues? Say a mould is exclusive to a character, and the theme has ended production and the part cannot be reused for another character?

[TheDoctor]

1 hour ago, hikouki said:

Does Lego destroy moulds because they are not planning on making those parts anymore, or because of licensing issues? Say a mould is exclusive to a character, and the theme has ended production and the part cannot be reused for another character?

A little of both.

Obviously very unique parts for licensed sets like Bombur's beard/belly combo are of no use after the theme and can't be reused because it's design is licensed.
Same for Gimli's helmet, after the theme ended it couldn't be used for anything else because its design was owned by New Line Cinema; so it gets destroyed (hence the slightly different version released in Rivendell)

The other part is storage.
It's not as simple as putting the mould on a shelf and saving it for later.
The steel moulds require an artificial environment to store or constant oiling to prevent them oxidising (the tolerances on the moulds are so small that even the smallest bit of damage or degradation can render them unusable).

They're also big chunks of high grade steel which have monetary value in and of themselves.

[upliftingbricks]

15 hours ago, Roebuck said:

Thanks will look at it when I get the time It would make sense why the goat mould was lost, but up until now my understanding was that it was an exception not the rule I know parts that are not in production cost more of the budget of a set/theme to bring back, but if this is the case then they should be a lot more expensive unless remaking a mould cost little (less than they spend on storing them, strange if they just sit on a shelf unless they need a good oil-bath every Sunday )

 You might not be far wrong. Just guessing but the moulds might have to be stored in certain conditions plus the amount of moulds per part times active parts from past 5 years might take up more storage space than we expect

2 hours ago, hikouki said:

Does Lego destroy moulds because they are not planning on making those parts anymore, or because of licensing issues? Say a mould is exclusive to a character, and the theme has ended production and the part cannot be reused for another character?

I would assume they would fall under 5 year rule. Who knows if a set/theme/license could return so likely those decisions dont follow themes ending. Theres also nice parts usage where parts used in different way to intended use might mean part is reused. Just guessing though, dont think anyone knows for sure outside Lego.

54 minutes ago, TheDoctor said:

A little of both.

Obviously very unique parts for licensed sets like Bombur's beard/belly combo are of no use after the theme and can't be reused because it's design is licensed.
Same for Gimli's helmet, after the theme ended it couldn't be used for anything else because its design was owned by New Line Cinema; so it gets destroyed (hence the slightly different version released in Rivendell)

The other part is storage.
It's not as simple as putting the mould on a shelf and saving it for later.
The steel moulds require an artificial environment to store or constant oiling to prevent them oxidising (the tolerances on the moulds are so small that even the smallest bit of damage or degradation can render them unusable).

They're also big chunks of high grade steel which have monetary value in and of themselves.

All good points!

 

I wonder if theres a chance the GWP could be a buildable one ring display. Not sure if there is enough gold pieces to do it without recolouring parts just for a gwp.

I dont know how or where but I reckon the the new Raven piece in the June Dreamzzz sets will be recoloured for an Eagle in a LOTR set. Maybe if GWP is a mini Orthanc it could be in there

Edited April 9 by upliftingbricks

[BitByBrick]

Wouldn’t mind a small GWP set (similar to the Wizard Battle) showcasing Isildur battling Sauron for the One Ring. It would be a chance to use the Narsil mold again. Just a thought.
 

If the GWP was a lone minifigure polybag (thinking Breakfastime Bilbo), who would be the most sought after? It could be tied to the tower, but wouldn’t have to be. Interested in anyone’s opinion. I’ll be sure to pass ideas along to my “friend” in Denmark 😉 

[mtrsteve]

3 hours ago, BitByBrick said:

Wouldn’t mind a small GWP set (similar to the Wizard Battle) showcasing Isildur battling Sauron for the One Ring. It would be a chance to use the Narsil mold again. Just a thought.
 

If the GWP was a lone minifigure polybag (thinking Breakfastime Bilbo), who would be the most sought after? It could be tied to the tower, but wouldn’t have to be. Interested in anyone’s opinion. I’ll be sure to pass ideas along to my “friend” in Denmark 😉 

My top 5, in order: 

Tom Bombadil (+Goldberry would be even sweeter but breaks your rules)

Faramir

Balrog bigfig

Eowyn

Bill the Pony

 

[Roebuck]

9 hours ago, TheDoctor said:

Same for Gimli's helmet, after the theme ended it couldn't be used for anything else because its design was owned by New Line Cinema; so it gets destroyed (hence the slightly different version released in Rivendell)

They for sure have the blueprints so a identical would make more sense unless maybe they wanted to make some small improvements to it

8 hours ago, upliftingbricks said:

I dont know how or where but I reckon the the new Raven piece in the June Dreamzzz sets will be recoloured for an Eagle in a LOTR set. Maybe if GWP is a mini Orthanc it could be in there

Makes little sense, there is already a eagle mould that would fit much better as a eagle (than the new raven), in addition to the giant eagle mould that came with LOTR sets a decade a go (they might have to remake that one if the 5 year rule is true)

[Unknown Jedi Master]

The Hobbit movies are having a re-run in my city, and rewatched An Unexpected Journey yesterday evening. 

Man, the scenes with the Wargs hunting the dwarf company, and especially the one with Radagast, are so incredibly cool. Wargs are crazy expensive on BL (as everything else Middle-Earth related) so imagine an orc battle pack that would give us a couple of these. 

I now have a craving to get a whole pack of those beasts. Being able to army build the eagles would be a dream as well. The potential in this theme is through the roof. 

[upliftingbricks]

13 hours ago, Roebuck said:

Makes little sense, there is already a eagle mould that would fit much better as a eagle (than the new raven), in addition to the giant eagle mould that came with LOTR sets a decade a go (they might have to remake that one if the 5 year rule is true)

I'd forgotten about that one to be honest as never picked it up in city sets. Guess it depends on scale of a mini orthanc as dont know how 2 moulds compare but you're right that eagle mould would look better (unless they wanted an action pose of one swooping in )

[TheDoctor]

Latest speculation I'm hearing is that the GWP is going to be a Fell Beast.

Also heard some rumours that it might be The One Ring in some sort of display box, but the 269 piece count seems too high for that.

I did think about it being Tolkien in his study, but honestly I think that's a pretty dull setting an minifig (no offence to the great man!)
All the discussion is about the fact it ties in directly with the set.

No doubt it will be something special though if it's exclusive to a Barad-Dur purchase!
(I'm still expecting them to throw the Gimli & Legolas Brickheadz in with the purchase too)

 

Edited April 11 by TheDoctor

[zoth33]

47 minutes ago, TheDoctor said:

Latest speculation I'm hearing is that the GWP is going to be a Fell Beast.

Also heard some rumours that it might be The One Ring in some sort of display box, but the 269 piece count seems too high for that.

I did think about it being Tolkien in his study, but honestly I think that's a pretty dull setting an minifig (no offence to the great man!)
All the discussion is about the fact it ties in directly with the set.

No doubt it will be something special though if it's exclusive to a Barad-Dur purchase!
(I'm still expecting them to throw the Gimli & Legolas Brickheadz in with the purchase too)

 

They won't throw the brickheadz in with this purchase it will just be the GWP and whatever GWP is on at that time as sometimes there are general GWP going on.  

[MAB]

12 hours ago, TheDoctor said:

Latest speculation I'm hearing is that the GWP is going to be a Fell Beast.

Also heard some rumours that it might be The One Ring in some sort of display box, but the 269 piece count seems too high for that.

I did think about it being Tolkien in his study, but honestly I think that's a pretty dull setting an minifig (no offence to the great man!)
All the discussion is about the fact it ties in directly with the set.
 

That speculation is already in this thread. Without sources, rumours and speculation become very circular. Some says something on one site, then references it from another, then references the second site on the first as proof others are reporting it.

To me, 269 parts for a buildable ring in a display stand is not that high. Display stands can take a lot of parts.

[mtrsteve]

I'm reading that there may have been a new leaked image, but can't find any trace of it. Has anyone seen a new leak today?