Bobbtom Posted February 2, 2015 Anyone know when the Orthanc is retiring? I'd like to get my hands on one, but am waiting for a sale or 2x points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flieger Posted February 2, 2015 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. The common rumour is that Hasbro owns the rights to produce action figures whereas Lego owns the rights to produce building toys. Therefore pure minifigure sets without builds are not permitted. I do not know if it is true though. I personally never missed army builders. I missed Gondorian architecture. But that is because Lego is a building toy for me, indeed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faefrost Posted February 2, 2015 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. 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. 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 Sigh! Ok first up Hasbro (or whoever holds the action figure license). That only effects selling minifigs as standalone product. And yes Hasbro did get on Lego over that with Star Wars. It is why Battlepacks have builds. It's also why Lego had to start gluing minifigs down in the magnet sets. Nothing done in either LotR nor The Hobbit lines would brush up against anyone else's action figure license. I am sure the major issue with LotR Battlepacks was Games Workshop. They hold the LotR and Hobbit license for build able custom armies as part of their miniatures game. And they tend to very aggressively pursue anyone that comes even close to a license or IP they are involved in. So the Lego license for the properties is in all liklihood written such that any conflict will be avoided. Each license is different. It is clear that the Middle a Earth ones are a bit more restrictive in what TLG can do (greater minimum build per minifig req's etc) typically the restrictions will come from how the IP owner has broken down their IP for licensing. As for the lack of generic figures? It's simple. Generic figures do not drive set sales the way named identifiable characters do. Army builders may individually buy a lot, but collectively they are a drop in the bucket compared to the number of figure collectors out there. The army builders, both the sets and the AFOL type are nice to have, but their limited numbers do not make it where TLG would be pushing the boundaries of an IP license just to appease them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrickSev Posted February 2, 2015 The common rumour is that Hasbro owns the rights to produce action figures whereas Lego owns the rights to produce building toys. Therefore pure minifigure sets without builds are not permitted. I do not know if it is true though. I personally never missed army builders. I missed Gondorian architecture. But that is because Lego is a building toy for me, indeed. Thanks for the info Personally I think Minifigures are building toys not action figures. However, once more , the same thing would still apply to Star Wars battle packs. I understand someone is saying TLG group can't make a CMF series due to that issue but I think Minifigures are indeed a completely different thing than action figures. I mean you have to "build" them so they are "building toys", just my 2 cents, of course Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blakstone Posted February 2, 2015 But it is not really our opinion that counts. This stuff is often settled in courts such as when the US Government was arguing that mutants (of the X-Men fame) are human. LEGO wants to avoid getting dragged into court and this is affects their behavior. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAB Posted February 2, 2015 The common rumour is that Hasbro owns the rights to produce action figures whereas Lego owns the rights to produce building toys. Therefore pure minifigure sets without builds are not permitted. I do not know if it is true though. I personally never missed army builders. I missed Gondorian architecture. But that is because Lego is a building toy for me, indeed. What are you missing for Gondorian architecture? You have the bricks, so build. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Proximo Posted February 3, 2015 Anyone know when the Orthanc is retiring? I'd like to get my hands on one, but am waiting for a sale or 2x points. Probably this may/june/july (two years after it's introduction) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrickSev Posted February 3, 2015 But it is not really our opinion that counts. This stuff is often settled in courts such as when the US Government was arguing that mutants (of the X-Men fame) are human. LEGO wants to avoid getting dragged into court and this is affects their behavior. For large companies the risk of being "dragged into court" is always considered according to the potential profits. In other words if they think they can make a lot of money, companies usually "take the chance". I think TLG didn't do that because they believe the "risks" outnumber the "benefits" and so they deduced to avoid any potential problem Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HawkLord Posted February 3, 2015 I would be very surprised if games-workshop had a leg to stand on with Lego battle packs. GW makes static miniatures for a tabletop game and they are no where near the size or depth as a toy manufacturer. I've always known about the Hasbro piece with Lego and that I can mildly understand, but GW is a totally different concept. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrickSev Posted February 3, 2015 I would be very surprised if games-workshop had a leg to stand on with Lego battle packs. GW makes static miniatures for a tabletop game and they are no where near the size or depth as a toy manufacturer. I've always known about the Hasbro piece with Lego and that I can mildly understand, but GW is a totally different concept. Well, GW complains about a lot things lol. They are hyper vigilant and sometime they go a little too far. They complained about the use of "Space Marine" and they have lost ( the term was around much before they use for their "Grimdark Space Saga") I once read, and with a little search on the web we should find more info ( for those who are curious ) they complained about a company that they claimed "copied" a undeveloped concept GW put in a one of their book. It was not even the same, they just argued on few anatomical similarities between the two "alien creatures". They are also know for shutting down blogs that just mention them, they have a peculiar policy on "derivative works" etc. I'm not attacking GW lol. I have been a Warhammer 40K player for decades and I always "defended" GW when people "attacked" them due to prices etc but they made several marketing disasters in the last couple of years. I guess I'm wandering a little too much Back to the more relevant matter: I think the fact Hasbro has a license regarding action figures shouldn't be a problem for Lego. Both have a Star Wars license and everyone makes their own toys Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faefrost Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) I would be very surprised if games-workshop had a leg to stand on with Lego battle packs. GW makes static miniatures for a tabletop game and they are no where near the size or depth as a toy manufacturer. I've always known about the Hasbro piece with Lego and that I can mildly understand, but GW is a totally different concept. It's not a matter of whether or not GW would have had a leg to stand on. It is that WB as the license holder split up the IP in such a way and segmented the licenses such that conflicts do not occur. There is no direct issue between GW and TLG. WB lays out very specifically in the contracts what the boundaries and requirements are. There was an interview with one of the Lego Reps at one of the brickshows from a year or two ago where they talked a little bit about this without going into specifics by line. Each license specifies things like ration of build to minifigs, number of named minifigs etc. Each is different so what applies to one does not apply to any others. These contracts are painstakingly specific. and they are often so in order to subdivide the merchandise property more cleanly between vendors. Do we have any direct and specific evidence of this? No. Neither TLG nor pretty much any vendor will ever discuss such things publicly. But if you have ever had any experience with licensed properties and are able to look at what is actually being said in public statements through a business speak filter it is pretty obvious how it all works. And it works the same for any vendor. Back to the more relevant matter: I think the fact Hasbro has a license regarding action figures shouldn't be a problem for Lego. Both have a Star Wars license and everyone makes their own toys And yet the Lego and Hasbro Star Wars licenses are the only ones that we have actual evidence of having come into direct conflict at one point. Hasbro filed a complaint with Lucasfilms about the magnet sets. Edited February 4, 2015 by Faefrost Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrickSev Posted February 4, 2015 And yet the Lego and Hasbro Star Wars licenses are the only ones that we have actual evidence of having come into direct conflict at one point. Hasbro filed a complaint with Lucasfilms about the magnet sets. And how did it end? People and companies file complaints about anything. There are persons who would sue someone for the most illogical reasons. They can but finding a court that says they are right it's a far more difficult task Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blakstone Posted February 4, 2015 LEGO fans got screwed... I mean the magnets were all pulled and now there are screws that go into the minifig base to prevent AFOL from ungluing them and using them as regular minigs. I bought a Frodo magnet on clearance for just over a $1. I was able to save his arms, Sting, the ring, and hair. I was not even able to pull his head off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blakstone Posted February 4, 2015 (edited) A new popular this week Lord of the Rings set, The Oliphaunt. Unlike Rivendell, I supported this set. While big, it is not too big to display and the mold looks like an actual creature since it does not have obvious gaps in the body. I think it could use more minifigs though. [EDIT] - Fixed Rivendell. Edited February 4, 2015 by Blakstone Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrickSev Posted February 4, 2015 LEGO fans got screwed... I mean the magnets were all pulled and now there are screws that go into the minifig base to prevent AFOL from ungluing them and using them as regular minigs. I bought a Frodo magnet on clearance for just over a $1. I was able to save his arms, Sting, the ring, and hair. I was not even able to pull his head off. I heard a lot of negative feedback on the magnet sets due that reason. A new popular this week Lord of the Rings set, The Oliphaunt. Unlike Rivendale, I supported this set. While big, it is not too big to display and the mold looks like an actual creature since it does not have obvious gaps in the body. I think it could use more minifigs though. It looks a very nice set. I remember when Games Workshop made a set based on that creature (I think it was the same creature: it was quite long ago ) Having it in Lego would be amazing and like you said "it's not too big" etc, so it may have more chances to be approved Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bachamn Posted February 4, 2015 Unlike Rivendale... Rivendell Rivendell RivenDELL sorry, not trying to be a grammar nazi but I just keep seeing this mistake and it bugs me. It's never been Rivendale; I think some people just don't realize that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dr.Cogg Posted February 4, 2015 I guess Lord of the Rings is dead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Proximo Posted February 4, 2015 I guess Lord of the Rings is dead. You got it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Risgrynsgrot Posted February 4, 2015 A new popular this week Lord of the Rings set, The Oliphaunt. Looks unfinished.. I mean the Oliphant is almost okay but the top.. I guess Lord of the Rings is dead. Deader than dead! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrickJagger Posted February 4, 2015 I guess Lord of the Rings is dead. In my eyes, Lotr is dead, but since Minas Tirith got to 10k supporters on Ideas, technically isn't. It was just revealed that the results for the next batch of Ideas sets (which includes MT) will come in late May. Then, unless there is a drastic change in policy on the acceptable size of an Ideas set (about 500 pieces) , it will be over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrickSev Posted February 4, 2015 Looks unfinished.. I mean the Oliphant is almost okay but the top.. Check the "updates" page. The author posted the photos of the improved new top Also I think the number of Minifigures should be increased a little Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bycougars Posted February 5, 2015 Check the "updates" page. The author posted the photos of the improved new top Also I think the number of Minifigures should be increased a little The updates look great! Too bad the designer didn't put the updates as his main photo it probably would get a lot more support that way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAB Posted February 5, 2015 I guess Lord of the Rings is dead. Not at all. In retail stores, sure it is dead. But the theme will live on forever. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SheepEater Posted February 5, 2015 (edited) Not at all. In retail stores, sure it is dead. But the theme will live on forever. exactly. People have been MOCing LOTR since 2001, at least. Edited February 5, 2015 by SheepEater Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fsintercambio Posted February 5, 2015 The updates look great! Too bad the designer didn't put the updates as his main photo it probably would get a lot more support that way. I'm the author of "the oliphaunt" project on lego ideas. I just came to say thanks to you guys... In fact I just changed the top last week, so I can't change the main photos =( Sorry about my english, I'm brazilian ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.f411c80381c4eae09fd587e90d37e81b.jpg){kind=avatar}