LEGO LotR - general discussion

[bachamn]

It is this that many members here and AFOLS forget. You don't watch the movies for when the Fellowship is sitting around smiling. You don't watch it only for the character development. You watch these movies for the epic battle scenes that everyone remembers.

I get what you're saying, but you can't really use the generalized "you" in those statements because those are exactly the reasons I watch the films. Maybe many people watch them as action films, but my favorite parts of the LotR and Hobbit films have always been the parts that take place in the Shire.

Edited January 28, 2015 by bachamn

[Blakstone]

Army building was something that I would loved to do as a kid but couldn't afford to. Heck, I could barely convince my Mom that I needed more than two Stormtroopers.

I think LEGO handled this line as well as they could as they had to consider different types of fans and different budgets for sets. If the Hobbit films were a large of as cultural phenomena as Lord of the Rings were, they were poised to do very well. Since they weren't, LEGO put more of their focus on other lines.

I don't know any kid who buys or receives entire lines of LEGO. They get an occasional set here or there.

Many AFOLs can afford to but looking at this board, I still see many that have to pick and choose because of their budgets. There are less than 2,000 people that signed the Save the LEGO Lord of the Rings petition so there are really not that many of us world wide. The casual set purchaser is main target for these sets. There are just so many more of them.

I think there were a few places that LEGO could have avoided repeating characters (Gimli in the Pirate Ship Ambush for example) but it is a good way for casual collectors to feel engaged.

[BrickSev]

Army building was something that I would loved to do as a kid but couldn't afford to. Heck, I could barely convince my Mom that I needed more than two Stormtroopers.

Me too

Even now that I'm an adult there are friends and family members who ask why I buy so many of the same set. Most of them, though, are impressed to see all those Minifigures displayed as an army

Army building it's indeed more a AFOL thing for the reasons you mentioned

[Ql97]

That is true, no average kid can buy MM on random day. However, if a parent were looking to buy a kid a large set for a special occasion, there is no reason to buy The Goblin king or Moria. For the price of the Goblin King, a parent could buy an entire castle for the same price. What do you get with the Goblin king? A throne and two platforms. It is with this fact that led to so many LOTR and The Hobbit sets not being bought. If someone which would be many adults was just looking to buy a lego gift and had no exact request from a child they will and did pass over many of the LOTR and Hobbit sets. The sets are too small in comparison to other sets with the same price. This partially explains the poor sales. The movies being old and for older audiences also reduced sales, but not by much. Many themes such as city have no largely popular movie yet still sell well.

It's good business for a line that has many sets. There is nearly no incentive to buy more LOTR/Hobbit sets if you feel like you already have the set. Star Wars has many many characters that many buyers want, but the line is extremely varied and you won't have a problem with constant repeated characters. The battlepacks are an amazing success for the Star Wars lines. When the Imperial Dropship came out, my sons wanted mass amounts of stormtroops to build their army. It was a great set. No repeating characters like Darth Vader in it that would make one hesitant to buy it again. You'll always need more stromtroopers, but more than one or two Vaders? The $20 sets with Vader filled this void.

Let me put it another way.

Which would a kid rather buy?

Eowyn vs. a bunch of orcs, or

Eowyn vs. the Witch-King

They are going to chose the Witch King, because A) that's what they remember, and B) a bunch of orcs are no match for Eowyn.

Similarly with Moria, which are the kids going to want:

Fellowship vs. a bunch of orcs, or

Fellowship vs. a Cave Troll.

Orcs are no match for the Fellowship. In a kid's mind there is no way that would ever be a fair fight. A Cave Troll on the other hand, is a big, tough boss monster, which really makes an impression when you see it. Kids are always going want the big, memorable bosses, not the stupid minions with no fighting skills.

As for the multiple Gandalfs and Gimlis, most kids aren't going to get every single set in the entire line up. If they only included each character in a single set, then that character will be unavailable to the vast majority of the target demographic.

[Blakstone]

Different kids want different things. I think that LEGO has done enough research to see the pattern. If the demand is large enough in a line, they can support battle packs without named characters such as Star Wars. I am not sure about Chima since I find them on clearance almost as much as Hobbit.

But a kid, heck even as an adult, I can envision a larger army than I actually have. I put three Uruk Hai Armies worth of Uruks with my Helm's Deep and was able to envision an army of 10,000. I lack the space, money, or even desire to want to build the size of army that I see many here have.

[Bobbtom]

You have fail to see what you're arguing for. Your points are as to why the line is suceeding. Which we know isn't true. LOTR and Hobbit sets have been sitting on shelves longer than Lone Ranger (which had a battle pack) sets in some stores. Lego's research has failed. Research doesn't always yield correct info which led to the dismal sales of this line. We all know it, but won't admit it.

Boss battles aren't the draw of the line and you know it. Otherwise we would have better sales for many of these sets. Once again it's the battles. If it weren't the battles the line would have succeeded. Moria had a fine number of orcs but it was an $80 set that gave a tiny set in comparison to other $80 sets.

@Q197. Your logic makes no sense. Because orcs are weak no one wants them? I'm done if you continue this point.

"As for the multiple Gandalfs and Gimlis, most kids aren't going to get every single set in the entire line up. If they only included each character in a single set, then that character will be unavailable to the vast majority of the target demographic. "

I addressed this already. Read my last posts to find your answer.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Bobbtom

[Blakstone]

The only Lord of the Rings sets I personally saw on Clearance was the Pirate Ship. That appears to me to be a misstep but overall the comments on this board was the first wave was very good and the second wave should have included things that each fan liked better.

As for why the way the line failed, I think the responsibility goes to the movie reception. The first movie came out and a lot of people were very disappointed. Sells of the second Hobbit wave appear to be very bad. One of my local Walmart had wave 2 Hobbit (+ Goblin King) sets on step clearance just a month before last Christmas. I believe that is why there are no Walmarts I know that carried any wave 3 sets. Targets barely carried any of them and I never saw the Smaug set at any.

My local LEGO Store yesterday said that wave 3 is selling well there but they are not competing with other stores so that probably helps them.

Why did the Hobbit films fail to catch on like the Lord of the Rings films? I think part of that is the uneven tone of the movies. Also there are a lot of sci fi / fantasy films out there to compete for eyeballs.

There was not the interconnected superhero films back when Lord of the Rings came out or Hunger Games. When Lord of the Rings came out, it was the biggest thing for three years.

We don't know the details of the license so we don't know how much of a build was necessary to include minifigs to still fit in the construction toy market. LEGO cannot sell just minifigs of a licensed brand unless they also obtain the action figure line.

In all my time haunting toy aisles checking out LEGO, I only ONCE saw a kid show interest in a Middle Earth set. That is it. Once. LEGO gambled on the Hobbit being as big as Lord of the Rings, but they lost. LEGO moved on to beef up their Superhero lines and support their own brands instead. That is unfortunate for us but a smart move for them.

[Faefrost]

I would counter that one of the giggest missteps. The one that the big box stores mostly blew out at reduced prices, was the set we AFOLs loved the most. Helms Deep. Show of hands, how many around here actually bought it at list price vs buying it on deep discout at Walmart, Target or Amazon? I think mine was 50% off at Walmart. That's why they dropped the upper end price points for most of the Flagship sets in later waves. (And I think Goblin King did horrible at list price.) it's also likely why we got the Pirate Ship instead of anything Minas Tirith.

[BrickSev]

Different kids want different things. I think that LEGO has done enough research to see the pattern. If the demand is large enough in a line, they can support battle packs without named characters such as Star Wars. I am not sure about Chima since I find them on clearance almost as much as Hobbit.

But a kid, heck even as an adult, I can envision a larger army than I actually have. I put three Uruk Hai Armies worth of Uruks with my Helm's Deep and was able to envision an army of 10,000. I lack the space, money, or even desire to want to build the size of army that I see many here have.

I know "army building" requires a lot resources and not only a lot of money but also a lot of space. Beside it can be quite repetitive. You can customize your Minifigures but in the end it's a monotonous build. That's why even I don't have the desire to build very large scale armies. I prefer to add some variety to my collection and building activities

[MAB]

I know "army building" requires a lot resources and not only a lot of money but also a lot of space. Beside it can be quite repetitive. You can customize your Minifigures but in the end it's a monotonous build. That's why even I don't have the desire to build very large scale armies. I prefer to add some variety to my collection and building activities

Yes, and if you watch kids play battles with toys, you'll notice that often an army is around 5 or 6 characters. Many more than this and all the time is spent setting the army up and not moving them around or fighting (actually playing with them). Having two hands means that two characters are engaged in combat at once.

Sure, adults like their big set ups where armies are carefully positioned as a display, but that is different.

I also prefer smaller armies (20-30 maybe), and concentrate on the detail of the setting they are in (the lego bit) rather than just amassing a large collection of characters and putting them in a battle formation.

[BrickSev]

Yes, and if you watch kids play battles with toys, you'll notice that often an army is around 5 or 6 characters. Many more than this and all the time is spent setting the army up and not moving them around or fighting (actually playing with them). Having two hands means that two characters are engaged in combat at once.

Sure, adults like their big set ups where armies are carefully positioned as a display, but that is different.

I also prefer smaller armies (20-30 maybe), and concentrate on the detail of the setting they are in (the lego bit) rather than just amassing a large collection of characters and putting them in a battle formation.

One of the problems with "massive armies" is in the end it may appear just "bragging". There is always a good amount of "pride" when we show our collections and that's not a bad thing but when we show thousands of "stock" Minifigures it may seem we are just "bragging".

I prefer a little variety, so smaller armies with some details and, why not, a story to tell

In the case there is more than just "show off" how many Minifigures we can buy

[Blakstone]

I think of it like the LEGO Movie. In Emmett's world you see dozen and dozens of micromanages fighting all at once, but in Finn's world there was only a few of them visible. People use their imagination to fill in the rest.

I think though, if the license was different, we might have ended up with a Star Wars or Lone Ranger style army builder. But I think LEGO had to have a much larger build for this license. I did not mind since Helm's Deep is one of my three top builds and extending it with a very useful wall was great.

However, I was never emotionally invested in the MIrkwood Elves and I did not see a lot of potential in the actual build. It was just something to learn the techniques and then to sort into different part bins.

[BrickSev]

I think of it like the LEGO Movie. In Emmett's world you see dozen and dozens of micromanages fighting all at once, but in Finn's world there was only a few of them visible. People use their imagination to fill in the rest.

I think though, if the license was different, we might have ended up with a Star Wars or Lone Ranger style army builder. But I think LEGO had to have a much larger build for this license. I did not mind since Helm's Deep is one of my three top builds and extending it with a very useful wall was great.

However, I was never emotionally invested in the MIrkwood Elves and I did not see a lot of potential in the actual build. It was just something to learn the techniques and then to sort into different part bins.

Of course imagination play a very important role

The "collecting" aspect is a little different but we know a collector will never be satisfied with a given number, you know what I mean

EDIT:

I always thought, and still think, about getting the Mirkwood set, mostly for the Minifigures, but I wonder if it would be a wise choice or I if I should use that money for something else

Edited January 29, 2015 by BrickSev

[TheLegoDr]

I never once saw Helm's Deep at a clearance price at any big box store. I saw it at a ShopKo once, but never at any other store. Granted, I did end up ordering it through Barnes and Noble because they had a special LEGO sale at the time of release, but it was still about $100 instead of $130.

I wish I would have been able to find it for 50% off. I would have bought multiples at that price. I could use more Haldirs and bricks.

[Bobbtom]

I think of it like the LEGO Movie. In Emmett's world you see dozen and dozens of micromanages fighting all at once, but in Finn's world there was only a few of them visible. People use their imagination to fill in the rest.

I think though, if the license was different, we might have ended up with a Star Wars or Lone Ranger style army builder. But I think LEGO had to have a much larger build for this license. I did not mind since Helm's Deep is one of my three top builds and extending it with a very useful wall was great.

However, I was never emotionally invested in the MIrkwood Elves and I did not see a lot of potential in the actual build. It was just something to learn the techniques and then to sort into different part bins.

Kind of hard to replicate that Finn comparison if the only soldier we got in the LOTR line was the singular rohan soldier. If this "limit" is true then it effectively killed the line for lego. You cannot represent the charge of the Rohirrim with ONLY and JUST Emoer. A person that watched the movie knows that eomer did not have the glory charging down the hill. All his soldiers shared it together. Lego instead focused its attention on the same and repetitive characters over and over that didn't appeal to anyone at all. Either it be those that watched the movies or people that went to the store and bought the "coolest" looking set on the shelves. In the end, sets like the Goblin King Battle sold at 50% off.

Edited January 29, 2015 by Bobbtom

[Faefrost]

For those still decrying the lack of "Army Builder" sets and Star Wars style Battlepacks. If you stop and think things through it becomes real real easy to understand why the Middle Earth sets required more extensive builds, and each set had to have at least one major unique named character to reduce it as a generic army builder. It's shockingly simple once you realize it.

Neither Star Wars, nor The Lone Ranger offered or split out a specific "Army Building" license among their IP offerings. LotR and the Hobbit however do. And Games Workshop holds that license. The terms of Lego's LotR license likely kept them a safe distance away from anything that GW might take issue with.

Edited January 30, 2015 by Faefrost

[Bobbtom]

For those still decrying the lack of "Army Builder" sets and Star Wars style Battlepacks. If you stop and think things through it becomes real real easy to understand why the Middle Earth sets required more extensive builds, and each set had to have at least one major unique named character to reduce it as a generic army builder. It's shockingly simple once you realize it.

Neither Star Wars, nor The Lone Ranger offered or split out a specific "Army Building" license among their IP offerings. LotR and the Hobbit however do. And Games Workshop holds that license. The terms of Lego's LotR license likely kept them a safe distance away from anything that GW might take issue with.

This is only a minor complication that did not stop lego from making sets that buyers actually want. Uruk Hai army is the only set that was bought at stores from shoppers at a similar rate of sets like Star Wars or the Ugly Chima sets. It didn't languish on shelves for years like the Goblin King Battle. We could have gotten sets that didn't only focus on characters which consumers didn't buy at all. Sets that would have appealed to fans of the movie that liked the battles or castle buyers for example include: Gothmog and an squad of orcs with a catapult or grond. Even better. Minias Tinith or Elven Warriors with a wall or siege weapon. (Mirkwood Elf army actually was bought by consumers).

Edited January 30, 2015 by Bobbtom

[Blazej_Holen]

I must say that there is something right in your opinion Bobbtom, but all in all, there is plenty of space for mocing your own Middle Earth army with pieces we currently have. I doesnet means that I dont want to see some of fthose figs TLG didnt create at least main characters from LOTR game, but anyway, if you dotn follow the movie strictly you can create your own soldiers, without buying multiple sets..Thanks to God for Brickling and CMF lines. :)

[MAB]

I don't think anyone would have been able to follow the movie in terms of numbers when it comes to army building, even if there were battle packs. 6000 Rohan, 10000 ordcs, etc?

[Blazej_Holen]

If u scale it down acording to the fact that its a Lego I think that you can manage it. Battle at Pellenor fields could contain 60 Rohan Riders, 30-40 Gondor Soldiers, 20-30 Dead soldiers and 200-300 orcs + siege weapons :)

[MAB]

Or 30 Rohan, 20 Gondor, 15 Dead, 100 Orcs.

Or 15 Rohan, 10 Gondor, 8 Dead and 50 Orcs.

It would still look like a battle, and none of them would be anywhere near the scale of the movie.

[Blazej_Holen]

And who wants to scale it like it was in the movie? :)

[Deathleech]

Neither Star Wars, nor The Lone Ranger offered or split out a specific "Army Building" license among their IP offerings. LotR and the Hobbit however do. And Games Workshop holds that license. The terms of Lego's LotR license likely kept them a safe distance away from anything that GW might take issue with.

I dunno if I really buy that. Hasbro holds the action figure license for Star Wars, yet Lego still gets away with battle packs that have 4 minifigures and little more than a cannon or small vehicle in the set. If Lego can do that with a MUCH more popular license, why can't they do something similar for LotR/Hobbit? If Games Workshop owns the miniature/battle game license then surely Lego could have offered some small 4 minifigure battle packs for $12-15 bucks, had a small catapult or other arbitrary vehicle included, and even offered a name character in said set to fill any license agreements. There are enough named characters in the LotR/Hobbit franchise that having someone like Gamling in a Rohan battle pack would work perfect. He is a named character, but not so distinct he couldn't serve as a basic soldier as well.

Or 30 Rohan, 20 Gondor, 15 Dead, 100 Orcs.

Or 15 Rohan, 10 Gondor, 8 Dead and 50 Orcs.

It would still look like a battle, and none of them would be anywhere near the scale of the movie.

This is what I tried to do, but with the way the sets were layed out it was incredibly difficult. In the movies it's usually around 10 bad guys to every 1 good guy for the major battles. I managed to get about 4 to 1. In the actual sets its closer to 1 bad guy for every one good, or even 1 bad for every 2 good since they have so many named characters jam packed in. It's pretty much impossible to get anywhere near the movie scale seeing as there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers at the Battle of Pelennor Fields, and well over 10,000 at the Battle of Helm's Deep. The most figures I have seen anyone collect is like 2,000 Uruk-hai.

[Bobbtom]

I dunno if I really buy that. Hasbro holds the action figure license for Star Wars, yet Lego still gets away with battle packs that have 4 minifigures and little more than a cannon or small vehicle in the set. If Lego can do that with a MUCH more popular license, why can't they do something similar for LotR/Hobbit? If Games Workshop owns the miniature/battle game license then surely Lego could have offered some small 4 minifigure battle packs for $12-15 bucks, had a small catapult or other arbitrary vehicle included, and even offered a name character in said set to fill any license agreements. There are enough named characters in the LotR/Hobbit franchise that having someone like Gamling in a Rohan battle pack would work perfect. He is a named character, but not so distinct he couldn't serve as a basic soldier as well.

This is what I tried to do, but with the way the sets were layed out it was incredibly difficult. In the movies it's usually around 10 bad guys to every 1 good guy for the major battles. I managed to get about 4 to 1. In the actual sets its closer to 1 bad guy for every one good, or even 1 bad for every 2 good since they have so many named characters jam packed in. It's pretty much impossible to get anywhere near the movie scale seeing as there were hundreds of thousands of soldiers at the Battle of Pelennor Fields, and well over 10,000 at the Battle of Helm's Deep. The most figures I have seen anyone collect is like 2,000 Uruk-hai.

I agree. If it was truly a conflict Hasbro would have definitely protested. For the entire Hobbit/LOTR line Lego continued to focus solely on the characters even though it was obvious that it wasn't what most consumers wanted. Hence the LOTR/Hobbit shelves sitting on shelves for years. Granted I have the set and will get lonely mountain soon, but only because I like the Hobbit and LOTR. If I didn't like the theme, I would instantly scoff at the price and buy something else that offers more.

Sets that focused more on battles would have attracted castle builders. Minas Tinith, the scene where the wargs attacked Theoden's men are typical sets in a castle line. The last Hobbit wave doesn't seen to be widely sought by that many. It is true that stores had fewer in stock. Target only had a few of each set as opposed to 10 Goblin King Battles when that set was released. Walmart had no BOFA sets outright. I went to the stores often and they took a few months just to run out of sets like BOFA and Lonely Mountain which only had a few in stock each and was never restocked.

The BOFA line could have been so much better. The price for the sets are ludicrous for what you get. $130 for the Lonely Mountain set that doesn't even reach 900 pieces and the price is "justified" just because of the Dragon. We've had $50 and $100 that had dragons. No one besides hardcore fans are going to buy the Smaug set and stores knew it. For $20 more dollars you could get a modular building. For LESS you can get sets with MORE pieces that aren't just two walls and a dragon.

The BOFA set follows a similar description. There are no armies in it; just the continued focus on characters that has failed to produce this line good sales to justify more waves.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Bobbtom

[BrickSev]

Perhaps I missed something but why the "Hasbro license" should be a problem?

I mean Hasbro has a Star Wars license too but that does not prevent Lego from making Star Wars sets.

Like I said, it's possible I missed something