Lord of the Rings Ongoing Discussion

[Balrogofmorgoth]

I still don’t get how they got the hair color wrong for Aragorn and Frodo when the source material has been available for over 20 years now. But other than that and Frodo’s receding hairline, I think these are awesome! Seeing the higher quality images makes me more excited. I’ll definitely be getting all three

[MAB]

On 12/3/2022 at 1:51 PM, Balrogofmorgoth said:

I think that’s an absolute bogus complaint. And if there’s any license that deserves full waves of sets it’s LOTR. And I resent the statement that LOTR isn’t for a large age range, that’s just not true

Sure, any LOTR fan thinks it should get a full range of sets. But against that LEGO has the following info:

- (some) adults will pay for large sets 

- they did small sets through regular retailers in the past, and know how well they sold against themes like HP, SW, and in-house

- other movies will be in cinemas and they will be making small sets in themes for them.

 

You can resent the statement that LOTR is jot for a larger age range if you like but I cannot see under 12s being interested in it anywhere near as much as HP and SW and Ninjago. It is aimed at older teens and adults. If LEGO is producing other licensed and non-licensed small sets for younger kids then it makes sense that they aim their LOTR offering more towards older teens and adults. Some of the complaints about the initial waves of LOTR was that they had play features and were small rather than being large and detailed.

[ddavid]

Man, having the iconic Balrog fight scene would be amazing. The Mines of Moria could’ve been a great D2C

[Mandalorianknight]

1 hour ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

Frodo’s receding hairline

This is what puzzles me most. For the brown color being different, it could be about the fact that the characters have studded hair, and generic dark brown plates are rarer than reddish brown ones. (as opposed to slopes, which are pretty frequent. I also say this just off memory, I'm sure a quick bricklink search could well prove me mistaken.) But the hairline is just... what? It's such a strange design choice.

42 minutes ago, MAB said:

Sure, any LOTR fan thinks it should get a full range of sets. But against that LEGO has the following info:

- (some) adults will pay for large sets 

- they did small sets through regular retailers in the past, and know how well they sold against themes like HP, SW, and in-house

- other movies will be in cinemas and they will be making small sets in themes for them.

You can resent the statement that LOTR is jot for a larger age range if you like but I cannot see under 12s being interested in it anywhere near as much as HP and SW and Ninjago. It is aimed at older teens and adults. If LEGO is producing other licensed and non-licensed small sets for younger kids then it makes sense that they aim their LOTR offering more towards older teens and adults. Some of the complaints about the initial waves of LOTR was that they had play features and were small rather than being large and detailed.

I don't think that's necessarily true. HP is a theme largely devoid of conflict for many of the sets and earlier books. (I mean, they've made like 2 sets off the book with the most external conflict since the reboot), and while the books are aimed at kids as well, most merchandise I've seen of them seems to be trying to hit the nostalgia button for adults. I think Lord of the Rings sets, if well-done, could definately be a hit amongst kids. I know a lot of my friends bought the sets when I was younger, and I bought some of the hobbit ones without knowing about the films at the time. (Which, quite frankly, probably was better for that. I think I'd be less likely to buy them if my frame of reference was the films rather than the book. The Hobbit films were not great.)

[Balrogofmorgoth]

I’ve just never met a kid that didn’t love LOTR after being introduced to it. Kids love sword fights and bows and arrows and dragons and things like that. I think the circumstances around The Hobbit films had way more to do with the theme being cancelled least time than kids not liking LOTR sets. I do agree that they overdid some of the play features but most of the time they were pretty well hidden so it just didn’t bother me. I think the style they had going last time was almost perfect, they just chose some of the wrong things at the wrong time to make into sets. I don’t think anyone would want only big D2C sets and no regular sets, most afols don’t think that way, even though lego refuses to understand that. They also had the disadvantage of The Hobbit splitting into three films and then ultimately not being very well received. 

[Brickroll]

38 minutes ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

I’ve just never met a kid that didn’t love LOTR after being introduced to it.

Kind of a crucial part here though, I must admit. I'd love a full theme, I would probably even trade in Star Wars or perhaps a couple toes for one, but I don't think it has the same cultural appeal with younger kids. I didn't get a chance to watch to watch the trilogy till I was a teenager, whereas I have always loved HP and SW and even wanted Super Heroes sets before I had seen the movies. I think Lego's hesitance to make a full castle theme may speak to the fact that they are worried classic fantasy selling well with children, and they have largely gone adult with that era. LEGO is probably pretty hesitant to make themes that are aimed more for teens, rather than all ages--just look at the difference between Overwatch (even ignoring Blizzard being filled with scumbags) and Minecraft. Then again, it's entirely possible you are right here, maybe kids just have not been given a good chance to get fantasy sets and have not really explored it yet. 

[MAB]

Star Wars has some sets that are 4+ and lots that are 7+/8+ etc. Harry Potter has sets that are 7+, 8+ etc. I don't think those younger age ranges are appropriate for LOTR.

Last time around, LEGO badged LOTR sets as 8-14 and 9-14. I think that was a mistake. If done today, they'd probably be 16+. I don't think 8-10 year olds were into LOTR. I really doubt if many 10-14 years old kids are either, not when there were / are SW, HP, etc (and now Avatar, Indy, ...) in competition with them.

So to me, it makes sense that they target LOTR above the younger teen market and go for the adult market. We obviously do not know how well the adult sets from ICONS and the other adult-focussed expensive sets are selling. I imagine they are doing well though, as LEGO keeps making them. Something in their marketing for adults is pointing them towards one large detailed set instead of multiple smaller sets.

Would it be good to get a large D2C and lots of supplementary sets? Sure. But that doesn't seem the way LEGO is going for adult collector sets.

[Mandalorianknight]

13 minutes ago, MAB said:

Star Wars has some sets that are 4+ and lots that are 7+/8+ etc. Harry Potter has sets that are 7+, 8+ etc. I don't think those younger age ranges are appropriate for LOTR.

Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, the MCU, the DCEU, etc all have had sets from movies just as dark, if not darker, than the LOTR trilogy. Are you going to say that LOTR isn't appropriate for 7+/8+, but Temple of Doom, Batman V Superman, Rogue One, Civil War/Infinity War, The Deathly Hallows/Half Blood Prince, etc are?

(I didn't include Avatar because I haven't seen it, I think I've made my point with the other franchises. That said, I do think out of LOTR, Indy, and Avatar, they are being set up to compete. My guess is only one or two continue, and my money and hope is on Avatar losing that fight.)

Edited December 5, 2022 by Mandalorianknight

[Surge]

ive never fully watched lotr (always got bored halfway through) but im def gonna give it another shot with new sets release

 

i love gollum, he looks so goofy i gotta get him

[sahidko]

I personally still can't wrap my head around that the first thing we get after almost 10 years of waiting are brickheadz. Like come on LEGO are we setting up ourselves for another decade of "the theme didn't sell well enough" right from the start? :D Really really hope that the Rivendell is worth it.

[Balrogofmorgoth]

6 minutes ago, sahidko said:

I personally still can't wrap my head around that the first thing we get after almost 10 years of waiting are brickheadz. Like come on LEGO are we setting up ourselves for another decade of "the theme didn't sell well enough" right from the start? :D Really really hope that the Rivendell is worth it.

That’s my thought as well. They’ll release a $500 set and three Brickheadz and say “LOTR doesn’t sell well” no you just don’t understand your market

[Brickroll]

1 hour ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, the MCU, the DCEU, etc all have had sets from movies just as dark, if not darker, than the LOTR trilogy. Are you going to say that LOTR isn't appropriate for 7+/8+, but Temple of Doom, Batman V Superman, Rogue One, Civil War/Infinity War, The Deathly Hallows/Half Blood Prince, etc are?

Haven't seen Temple of Doom or BvS, but yes, LotR is absolutely darker than the rest of those films. It's stupid to get wrapped in how dark movies are, but RotK gets pretty dark--they straight up catapult severed heads into Gondor, and even if it's not shown, it's absolutely a little unsettling, especially for 7 year olds.

[Balrogofmorgoth]

19 minutes ago, Brickroll said:

Haven't seen Temple of Doom or BvS, but yes, LotR is absolutely darker than the rest of those films. It's stupid to get wrapped in how dark movies are, but RotK gets pretty dark--they straight up catapult severed heads into Gondor, and even if it's not shown, it's absolutely a little unsettling, especially for 7 year olds.

It’s dark, but overall I would say it’s more child friendly in other areas. It doesn’t rely on crude humor and bad language like Marvel movies for example. It has a wholesomeness to it that most movies don’t

[Mandalorianknight]

47 minutes ago, Brickroll said:

Haven't seen Temple of Doom or BvS, but yes, LotR is absolutely darker than the rest of those films. It's stupid to get wrapped in how dark movies are, but RotK gets pretty dark--they straight up catapult severed heads into Gondor, and even if it's not shown, it's absolutely a little unsettling, especially for 7 year olds.

Temple of Doom (which received several sets and will be receiving a new one soon) has a man pull another man's still beating heart out of his chest. Not implied, shown. It's why the PG-13 rating exists in the US. BvS is pretty bad too, more consistently than most of the rest of the movies I listed (Meaning both darkness and quality. I love the Snyder Cut to death, but the films getting to it are rough), I'll just say that one of the original ideas for the film was to have batman (spoiler for just... it's not a spoiler for the movie, it's just kinda gross and something I wish I didn't know)

Spoiler

"drop the soap" in prision

and in the actual movie, he physically brands criminals with the bat-symbol, not to mention Jimmy Olsen's fate, the Jar of "peach tea" scene, etc.

24 minutes ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

It’s dark, but overall I would say it’s more child friendly in other areas. It doesn’t rely on crude humor and bad language like Marvel movies for example. It has a wholesomeness to it that most movies don’t

I totally agree with the wholesomeness point. There's a purity of message in LOTR that most modern movies don't have. I'd say the original SW trilogy and the first couple Harry Potters are the only major pop-culture examples I can think of with that sort of wholesomeness to them, which makes some sense as they all follow the hero's journey and aren't filled with profanity and explicit jokes.

[Triceron]

On 12/3/2022 at 5:51 AM, Balrogofmorgoth said:

I think that’s an absolute bogus complaint. And if there’s any license that deserves full waves of sets it’s LOTR. And I resent the statement that LOTR isn’t for a large age range, that’s just not true

I think there needs to be a more indepth understanding on how marketting works and how Lego prioritizes their liscencing and release strategy to really get what we're trying to say here.

It's not whether these franchises deserve to be made into a full wave or not, it's whether Lego deems there to be a broad and signficant audience to tap into for the investment they're putting into it.  Cuz even stuff like people saying bringing back Castle would make truckloads of money, it's only really a case of people saying what they think would do well without the understanding of the data and whether Lego would agree.

So just thinking LOTR has a large age range might not be as true to Lego, who actually have the data on how well the sets sold.  And if it's not continued the way the Harry Potter lineup has been selling, then I can see the reality being that LOTR simply has a more niche (yet very dedicated) audience that Lego may not consider worth dedicating a full wave to, much like how they're treating classic Castle.

3 hours ago, sahidko said:

I personally still can't wrap my head around that the first thing we get after almost 10 years of waiting are brickheadz. Like come on LEGO are we setting up ourselves for another decade of "the theme didn't sell well enough" right from the start? :D Really really hope that the Rivendell is worth it.

To be honest, I felt the same way about the recent Stranger Things products they gave us this year.  I really expected a Starcourt Mall or some other big set, but all we got was the Brickheadz and a Demogorgon Keychain.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Triceron

[Brickity]

On 12/3/2022 at 6:51 PM, Balrogofmorgoth said:

Photos aren’t the best, it really does look better in person, I promise. It sort of all blends together in the photos and I’m certainly no photographer

That looks so sick! I need it in my life

[Kaijumeister]

5 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

I totally agree with the wholesomeness point. There's a purity of message in LOTR that most modern movies don't have. I'd say the original SW trilogy and the first couple Harry Potters are the only major pop-culture examples I can think of with that sort of wholesomeness to them, which makes some sense as they all follow the hero's journey and aren't filled with profanity and explicit jokes.

Don’t want to veer too much off topic, but just wanted to express my enthusiastic agreement with this. Stories like LOTR and the Star Wars Original Trilogy are timeless precisely because they’re unafraid to be idealistic. Cynicism is a low hanging fruit for stories and I’m glad these two examples at least remain untouched by it.

Back on topic, the Brickheadz are…Brickheadz I guess. They have some nice features but overall come off as so low effort, especially Frodo’s hair. It’s a shame given how far MOCs have come to show the potential behind Brickheadz as a creative medium - with the ability to squeeze in so much detail within a relatively small footprint. Speed Champions comes to mind as a theme that pushes the boundaries of using pieces in new and creative ways whilst maintaining a small volume.

I’ll pick up Gandalf and the Balrog just to support the ‘return’ of this theme and to take a first (and only) dip into Brickheadz, but I can’t say I’m overly enthusiastic to do so.

Also, regarding the old Hobbit sets, I always felt the initial Unexpected Journey wave was rather strong. It was with the two sequels that subsequent waves of sets began to feel more and more like just film tie-ins. But perhaps the esteem I hold An Unexpected Gathering to has positively tinted my view for the rest of that initial wave.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Kaijumeister

[Mandalorianknight]

8 minutes ago, Kaijumeister said:

Don’t want to veer too much off topic, but just wanted to express my enthusiastic agreement with this. Stories like LOTR and the Star Wars Original Trilogy are timeless precisely because they’re unafraid to be idealistic. Cynicism is a low hanging fruit for stories and I’m glad these two examples at least remain untouched by it.

Back on topic, the Brickheadz are…Brickheadz I guess. They have some nice features but overall come off as so low effort, especially Frodo’s hair. It’s a shame given how far MOCs have come to show the potential behind Brickheadz as a creative medium - with the ability to squeeze in so much detail within a relatively small footprint. Speed Champions comes to mind as a theme that pushes the boundaries of using pieces in new and creative ways whilst maintaining a small volume.

I’ll pick up Gandalf and the Balrog just to support the ‘return’ of this theme and to take a first (and only) dip into Brickheadz, but I can’t say I’m overly enthusiastic to do so.

Also, regarding the old Hobbit sets, I always felt the initial Unexpected Journey wave was rather strong. It was with the two sequels that subsequent waves of sets began to feel more and more like just film tie-ins. But perhaps the esteem I hold An Unexpected Gathering to has positively tinted my view for the rest of that initial wave.

I 100% agree with literally every word you've put down in this comment, lol.

Stories with wholesome values and themes that stand the test of time are timeless precisely because of that, like you said. As opposed to the cynicism, biting tone, and trying to push a message about current events that more modern movies do all too often. That's not to say darker, more modern media is bad. But it can't rely on being cynical and edgy. For example, I thought Andor was pretty good. But something like the boys, where the edginess is all the substance the show has, is literally unwatchable for me. (It's not that I don't like gore/violence. Well, I don't, but I've loved shows like Invincible where the gore isn't the point of the story. But when it feels like the creators expect you to applaud them just for being edgy, I can't get through the show.)

And yeah, I agree about the brickheadz too. I don't understand why Frodo's receding hairline isn't a bigger issue for most people. If it wasn't for the ring and the packaging you wouldn't be able to tell it was him. I think it was @Rui Miguel who posted much better brickheadz of Frodo and other characters just weeks before these were revealed.

I think I might get Arwen and Aragorn for my stepfather, since he's a huge fan of LOTR, but honestly I might just make Legolas and Gimli myself for him, since those are his favorites, and given the quality of the official ones I think I can do fairly well.

And finally, I totally agree that both the first hobbit movie and it's sets were strong, with the sequels falling off. The hobbit should have been either a two-parter or just a 3&1/2 hour movie.

[MAB]

19 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, the MCU, the DCEU, etc all have had sets from movies just as dark, if not darker, than the LOTR trilogy. Are you going to say that LOTR isn't appropriate for 7+/8+, but Temple of Doom, Batman V Superman, Rogue One, Civil War/Infinity War, The Deathly Hallows/Half Blood Prince, etc are?

(I didn't include Avatar because I haven't seen it, I think I've made my point with the other franchises. That said, I do think out of LOTR, Indy, and Avatar, they are being set up to compete. My guess is only one or two continue, and my money and hope is on Avatar losing that fight.)

There are toned down versions of Star Wars and franchises like Batman suitable for very small kids. My kids, for example, knew of Darth Vader long before they ever saw Star Wars. However, I cannot think of many LOTR toys that are aimed at very young kids, or even at 8-10 year olds. That is why I believe LOTR would not be a good seller across the whole age range of LEGO.

It is not really about the content, it is about perception of who the material is for. You can buy lots of kids' clothes and toys with Batman on, SW characters on, etc. There is a perception that these franchises are kid friendly and so toys are made that are suitable for younger kids, and younger kids know of the franchises that way. LEGO tried to market LOTR to 8+ year olds last time around. Whether it worked or not, only they know. But it was very easy to get large discounts on LOTR and Hobbit sets.

All movie franchises that LEGO do are in competition with each other. They only have so much production capacity and stores have only so much shelf space. LEGO will produce what stores want to take. Doing a current movie or a perpetual best seller aimed at many age ranges makes more sense than doing an older movie(s) aimed at a smaller group. Especially for general retail sets. It is so frequently said that LEGO are leaving money on the table by not producing (insert favourite theme here) as me and people like me would buy them. No doubt that is true, but what is important is what else this would it knock out and how many sales do they lose because of that. It is the same with LOTR. They will have done their analysis and decided that it is better to go for the adult market and in doing so that it is better for them to go for one big, expensive set rather than 6-8 smaller ones aimed at either 8-14 year olds or even at adults at the lower price points. Plus doing it as D2C means they get to control the sales, they are not going to general retailers.

Edited December 6, 2022 by MAB

[Balrogofmorgoth]

50 minutes ago, MAB said:

There are toned down versions of Star Wars and franchises like Batman suitable for very small kids. My kids, for example, knew of Darth Vader long before they ever saw Star Wars. However, I cannot think of many LOTR toys that are aimed at very young kids, or even at 8-10 year olds. That is why I believe LOTR would not be a good seller across the whole age range of LEGO.

It is not really about the content, it is about perception of who the material is for. You can buy lots of kids' clothes and toys with Batman on, SW characters on, etc. There is a perception that these franchises are kid friendly and so toys are made that are suitable for younger kids, and younger kids know of the franchises that way. LEGO tried to market LOTR to 8+ year olds last time around. Whether it worked or not, only they know. But it was very easy to get large discounts on LOTR and Hobbit sets.

All movie franchises that LEGO do are in competition with each other. They only have so much production capacity and stores have only so much shelf space. LEGO will produce what stores want to take. Doing a current movie or a perpetual best seller aimed at many age ranges makes more sense than doing an older movie(s) aimed at a smaller group. Especially for general retail sets. It is so frequently said that LEGO are leaving money on the table by not producing (insert favourite theme here) as me and people like me would buy them. No doubt that is true, but what is important is what else this would it knock out and how many sales do they lose because of that. It is the same with LOTR. They will have done their analysis and decided that it is better to go for the adult market and in doing so that it is better for them to go for one big, expensive set rather than 6-8 smaller ones aimed at either 8-14 year olds or even at adults at the lower price points. Plus doing it as D2C means they get to control the sales, they are not going to general retailers.

This is all true, but my fear is that because lego seems to understand very little about their adult market, they will run it into the ground if that remains their only target audience. They seem to think we don’t like minifigures and only buy statues and busts and over scaled builds that nobody ever asked for. And then when those don’t sell, they turn around and say marketing to adults doesn’t work. Their marketing data clearly doesn’t reflect reality sometimes

Edited December 6, 2022 by Balrogofmorgoth

[Altair1]

On 12/4/2022 at 5:57 AM, wesker said:

Faramir covers a highly desired character who was missing from the previous line

Here is the custom designed version of Faramir I got, together with the Witch-King of Angmar.

[MAB]

27 minutes ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

This is all true, but my fear is that because lego seems to understand very little about their adult market, they will run it into the ground if that remains their only target audience. They seem to think we don’t like minifigures and only buy statues and busts and over scaled builds that nobody ever asked for. And then when those don’t sell, they turn around and say marketing to adults doesn’t work. Their marketing data clearly doesn’t reflect reality sometimes

Or there is the opposite view that you don't understand their target audience. LEGO knows how well the big sets sell. They know how well things like model plants and art sets sell. They know how well the busts, helmets, statuettes, and so on sell. They know how the UCS sets of SW sell.

I don't think the idea of adults liking minifigures is lost on LEGO, they produce large sets with minifigures in too. Look at the ICONS Castle,  Mos Eisley Cantina, Hogwarts Express (Collectors Edition). Sure they produce brick built sculptures too, but the figure based sets are still there.

It is one of those strange things, that as the popularity of LEGO among adults has changed, so the product itself has changed as new people to the hobby expect different things. Sets marketed towards adults have often become huge, expensive, flagship type designs. The sort of thing that in the past they would have done once or maybe twice a year across all ranges, usually as a UCS SW set or a Creator Expert set. A decade ago, the £100 / $130 / 1300 piece Helm's Deep was a big set and a lot to pay for a LEGO set. Orthanc was then released at £170 / $200 and was seen as very expensive for the time. Whereas today, Helm's Deep would be on the lower end in terms of size / cost for the adult set range, and Orthanc probably just a mid-range set. They have taken the UCS model from Star Wars and applied it across all themes for the 18+ sets. They know adults with money will pay high prices for the large sets. It has affected adults that were used to buying the 10-14 type sets, as they now seem somewhat simplistic compared to the 18+ offerings.

[Mandalorianknight]

2 hours ago, MAB said:

There are toned down versions of Star Wars and franchises like Batman suitable for very small kids. My kids, for example, knew of Darth Vader long before they ever saw Star Wars. However, I cannot think of many LOTR toys that are aimed at very young kids, or even at 8-10 year olds. That is why I believe LOTR would not be a good seller across the whole age range of LEGO.

This doesn't cover stuff like indiana jones, which as we've just seen they're alright continuing to make sets for, and also kinda hits a wall when you realize they aren't making just generic batman sets. They made batman sets specifically for BvS.

24 minutes ago, MAB said:

Or there is the opposite view that you don't understand their target audience. LEGO knows how well the big sets sell. They know how well things like model plants and art sets sell. They know how well the busts, helmets, statuettes, and so on sell. They know how the UCS sets of SW sell.

You say this, but we do know some of the sets at least have been selling poorly. Off the top of my head the BP bust has been a catastrophically poor-selling set, which we can piece out from people who know store owners, how quickly it got more VIP points, etc. There are ways to tell how well something sold pretty easily without having lego's metrics.

[Rui Miguel]

14 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

And yeah, I agree about the brickheadz too. I don't understand why Frodo's receding hairline isn't a bigger issue for most people. If it wasn't for the ring and the packaging you wouldn't be able to tell it was him. I think it was @Rui Miguel who posted much better brickheadz of Frodo and other characters just weeks before these were revealed.

I think I might get Arwen and Aragorn for my stepfather, since he's a huge fan of LOTR, but honestly I might just make Legolas and Gimli myself for him, since those are his favorites, and given the quality of the official ones I think I can do fairly well.

And finally, I totally agree that both the first hobbit movie and it's sets were strong, with the sequels falling off. The hobbit should have been either a two-parter or just a 3&1/2 hour movie.

Thanks for the mention @Mandalorianknight ;) It was me indeed The Fellowship and The Witch-King of Angmar I was hoping LEGO would use dark brown color for Frodo's hair, especially using Tile, Round 1 x 1 Quarter :( If they did that it would be possible to bring my version to life. Balrog is my favorite from the reveals. I hope these sell well so the IP returns in full glory to the shelves :)  There's a gold mine in Lord Of The Rings franchise; ideas to be mined and crafted in LEGO products. Let's see what the future holds. 

[MAB]

39 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

This doesn't cover stuff like indiana jones, which as we've just seen they're alright continuing to make sets for, and also kinda hits a wall when you realize they aren't making just generic batman sets. They made batman sets specifically for BvS.

Right, but there will be a tie in to a current movie.

40 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

You say this, but we do know some of the sets at least have been selling poorly. Off the top of my head the BP bust has been a catastrophically poor-selling set, which we can piece out from people who know store owners, how quickly it got more VIP points, etc. There are ways to tell how well something sold pretty easily without having lego's metrics.

I don't think the LOTR set will look like the Black Panther bust. It sounds like it is going to be more in the style of the UCS range from Star Wars or the ICONS Castle. That said, I think we have to realise that some people don't like minifigure based sets, and like to see LEGO used to build things, rather than just a backdrop for minifigures.

We also don't know what the target sales are for sets like that. Sometimes it is enough for them to have a large set that people look at, but then go on to buy other sets. Same with the football stadiums. They don't seem to sell but they get people talking and visiting stores. I imagine Titanic and Eiffel Tower are similar. Great looking sets, but just too big for many people. For me, it is not that the Black Panther bust is a bad set, just high priced and possibly niche interest at the price it is. I'm not really sure of the demographics of the audience for Black Panther and how much that overlaps with people that have that sort of money to spend on a LEGO bust. What I do know is that it got a lot of news coverage in mainstream media.

Plus, sometimes LEGO needs to fail on a set. If they didn't, it means we would not be getting anything very novel when it comes to design. One or two sets failing abysmally would not harm them.