MAB

It isn't. If they order and later decide they don't want it, it doesn't go back in the pool available for sale as the ordering period is already closed. They can either resell and make a bit of cash or cancel it and it will just disappear into the system but won't be offered for sale by LEGO again. We don't know what happens to unpaid BDP sets, but I imagine when found they will tend to make their way to the secondary market. Ordering to intentionally resell is closer to scalping. Not that there is anything wrong with buying to resell anyway.

These don't really go together. Designs of the same licensed property at the same scale built by different people can look similar. You are both trying to recreate the same thing. When there are 100+ versions of the same thing, some of those will look very similar. I imagine you have both used techniques from official LEGO sets too, whether you intentionally copy them or just recall a good way to put specific parts together. Parts of yours will no doubt look similar to bits of other people's that built it before you.

Best selling and best set are two very different things. It wouldn't surprise me if just about every small HP play set (individually, not combined) outsell Rivendell even when compared by volume x price and not just volume.

It also depends on what they are doing with it. If you published instructions and they changed 10 parts and display it for their own use, saying it is based on yours, it is one thing. If they change 10 parts and are selling their own instructions it is something else.

If you ordered it, then you can also wait and see if it sold out quickly. If it sold out quickly, go ahead with it anyway even if you don't want it as the resale value will be high. And if it didn't sell out and you want to spend the money on something else, then you can cancel the order.

I somehow doubt that not doing The Hobbit sets would have changed the quality of the LOTR sets. They were working to their standard pattern for themes at the time, covering a range of sized sets and designing each set to the parts count needed for the price point, and spreading the necessary minifigures across all sets while repeating the core fan favourites. Not doing The Hobbit might have given us more LOTR at similar quality but then it could also have meant no LOTR sets if Warner Bros wanted to push The Hobbit rather than LOTR. Personally I bought all The Hobbit sets, mainly to get the full company of Dwarves, but some of the sets weren't bad. Bag End was the star of the theme and goes well with LOTR too but I also thought the Barrel Escape was a fun set, and the Lake Town sets were quite good scenery too.

There were complaints about the LOTR sets at the time. Along the lines of ... Weathertop was too small, the Mines of Moria were just walls, Shelob had no lair, Uruk-Hai Army was just a bit of wall, Council of Elrond was too small, Black Gate was only half a gate, nobody asked for the pirate ship, Wizard Battle just contained duplicate figures from Orthanc, which is nice but why did they make it so big and expensive...?

The LOTR movies also appealed to adults when they were released, it wasn't just teens or youngsters without the means to buy the sets when they were issued a decade or so later. It seems to me that part of the reason sales of the original LOTR sets were not great was that they were brought out a time when not many adults were into LEGO. Adult LOTR fans tended to ignore them because they weren't into LEGO at the time even though they could have afforded them. That changed in the second half of the 2010s onward and LEGO is becoming more accepted as an adult pass time. If you look back at the MOCs in the 2000-10 decade, there were LOTR MOCs. There was an appetite for the sets, but only really from fans of both LEGO and LOTR. LEGO was not a big enough draw for adult fans of LOTR and there were not enough kid fans of LOTR. The latter is probably still true, but the former has changed now that more adults are into LEGO. That is why it also makes sense that they target the mainly adult audience with adult sets (that is, large and expensive!). It was similar for other movies like BTTF and Ghostbusters and even things like the Mars Curiosity Rover. I think most owners of the original sets of those were fans of LEGO that also liked the movie (or the rover), rather than just fans of the movies (or rover) with little interest in LEGO at the time. I don't think the Castle 2013 range had anything to do with the ending of LOTR. They were totally different products. The production schedule for The Hobbit movies, especially the revising into three movies instead of two, seemed to have much more impact on LOTR than anything else.

They are planning to merge some non-functional variants together (sprue marks, stud types, inner ribs...), which would be good for both stores and buyers not caring about them. Although of course, it would make it harder if you wanted specific variants. https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1447090 The torso with ribs - especially the Classic Space torso - might cause an issue for some though.

Bricklink do not call these mold variants. They are linked because they are similar in shape, not mold variants.

I think they could also add the beacon tower. Things like that don't need to be to scale, as in Rivendell. Place it higher than the courtyard by maybe 8 or 10 bricks high of rocks with some steps and a small bridge to it and it gives the impression of being much higher. It adds play and display value for an iconic scene with minifigs for Pippin and a soldier standing guard. Similarly they could do some wall or the main gate if they wanted to do a fell beast or Grond, respectively. It doesn't really matter which level of the city those scenes happened.

Go to each store, select wants lists, select the nice to have list. Then you can add automatically.

You told me that I was wrong. I was not. Your "case in point" showing that details came from the books and not the movies was discussed by the designer a decade ago, specifically saying the inclusion of the ther Wizards' staffs was based on the movie.

Covid messed up the movie production and scheduling. The sets came out long before the movie, so sat on shelves for a long time.

Yes, and this is really only a (very) modern issue due to so many similar colour shades. Mixing up colours was never really a problem when the colour palette was very narrow.

We didn't see each floor of Orthanc in the movies or much detail, and LEGO had to fill the rooms of the tower with something. If you watch the official designer video, it is stated that they included the two keys and the other staffs in this 'trophy room' because of what Saruman says to Gandalf in his death scene in the movie.... "what does Gandalf want ... the key of Orthanc or of Barad Dur itself, the crowns of the 7 Kings and the rods of the 5 Wizards". So that was actually based on the movie. (2 min 45 sec)

Very nice. I used to do a lot of building with 1x2 plates instead of bricks but it gets very expensive very quickly.

Remember that sets these days have many more parts for similar sized builds. It is very frustrating to have to take apart large numbers of parts to correct errors, and if the builder believes the error was made due to poor instructions, then they might decide not to buy LEGO in future. Taking stuff apart is not necessarily fun if you have to redo it all just to correct a mistake. I built a couple of 1960s sets a few days back, and I made a couple of mistakes as I didn't spot all the pieces that were added in some steps. But being relatively small part count sets, such errors are easy to correct. While I would like to see more parts added per step in modern instructions, I do like that they tell you which parts are added in each step. I wouldn't like to have to do spot the difference game on every step of a 1000+ part set.

And maybe it also gives a clue about how high a LEGO Barad Dur will be compared to the existing Orthanc ... !

The sets are based on the movies, not the books. I imagine the average movie fan is less well versed than the average person that got through the books.

That many? I'm just recalling the armies that (didn't) feature in the Battle of Five Armies set! Goblins 3, Wolves 0. Elves 1, Men 1, Dwarves 2. Even if you count Eagles, it doesn't do much for the average army size.

3 of these?

They already are diversifying Friends figures and have been for some time when it comes to skin tones. It makes sense to keep those colours to realistic skin tones, I cannot see brightly coloured unrealistic figures selling well. An issue with Friends is that they use core characters that repeat. I don't mind them showing representation by doing characters like Autumn, but when they repeat her then you can end up with lots of figures all missing a left hand which looks very strange. Those parts cannot really be reused for other generic people like other Friends core characters can.

Although quite different in that resellers have no influence whatsoever over the producer in the case of LEGO. Commodity prices remain high but affordable when they are restricted because the producers control the supply so that they maximise their revenue. Whereas in the case of LEGO, there is a disconnect between seller and supplier. If there was a huge demand for a particular figure, then the supplier (LEGO) can fill that demand and make money themselves. Sellers take a huge risk when holding on to valuable stock rather than selling it, as more stock of the same or similar can appear at any time and this is not their decision.

One year, small themes that are soon replaced with others do not work well. That is essentially what GS, AC, PQ, MF, Atlantis, etc were. They come, they go, they are gone. They are small themes, so all the sets have to be aimed at the same age group. Having a theme appear and disappear is discontinuous, so kids getting a 6-8 year old set in year 1 won't have the opportunity to get 8-12 year old sets in the same theme in year 2 or 3, as the theme has been rotated for a totally different one. The theme is obsolete within a year on the timescales of being a kid. And if they split theme theme in to multiple age groups, then older kids won't necessarily be attracted to a large set in the theme as the only other sets available in that theme are for younger kids and there will not be any further ones for their age. The last Castle sets were aimed at 6/7-12 year olds, that is the middle ground, the traditional target age range for kids playsets. It wasn't meant to be for 12-16 year olds. From what I have seen, teens tend either to stop playing with LEGO or move on to their favourite licenses or more grown up subjects (botanicals, Modulars, realistic space, Technic. etc). Blended themes where there are sets for younger kids and older kids work well when the theme is huge, but not in a small and niche theme. If there were 6 sets in a theme and two were 4+, three 6-12 and one 12+, I really doubt it would sell to older kids as there is very little choice, and they would be playing with what is seen as a younger kids theme. For a small theme, they might as well concentrate on a single age bracket as small themes have to be relatively coherent. Whereas it works in a big theme like Ninjago, as there is plenty of scope to have varied subjects in each age bracket. There is critical mass in each age bracket - playsets that tend to be small vehicles or very small sets for younger users, bigger vehicles, animals and simple locations for intermediate, and more detailed location based models that are much more display than active play for teens. Each age bracket is almost self contained, without needing to buy from outside that age bracket. An older teen buying Ninjago City Gardens can display it alongside similar sets from the theme and doesn't need to buy some small and totally different style sets aimed at young kids. Having it as the same theme throughout is clever marketing as kids grow through the age brackets. There is belief that the theme has a future and you can add to your purchases later. That continuity is lost when you do a theme then replace it with another and then another. Replacing a theme after a year is a clear indication that they don't believe it has longevity and doesn't give customers confidence they can add to it in future. Buy this not junior ized but not up to Icons standard Classic Space set now, and in maybe 3-4 years we'll do something similar again is not good marketing. By then a teen will have moved on to Icons sets or forgotten about it. Clearly it is better to do a coherent play theme for younger kids or a one-off, standalone Icons display set. Both are bigger markets than the 12-14 year olds in the middle.