Lord of the Rings Ongoing Discussion

[kuzyabricks]

2 hours ago, zoth33 said:

Ok I thought I was missing something.  I hope he was joking because that would be crazy.  Thanks for the clarification.  I really hope the hunt for gollum is good.  Good movies seem to be hard to find nowadays.   

 

3 hours ago, RichardGoring said:

Really? I hope that's not a mistake. It was a great idea to turn three LOTR books into three movies. They had lots of content. It was an awful idea to turn a short single book into three movies, because there wasn't sufficient content and (to me) it felt like they had to expand things too much and add in a lot that didn't really contribute a lot to the main story or the overall experience.

That in turn caused it not to be nearly as popular. And so LEGO got burned by poor merchandising sales. And we lost LEGO LOTR for a decade.

I hope history doesn't repeat!

Edit: I read this as three movies, which sounds like a bad idea. Nine suggests you are joking? Clearly it's too late for me. Please say you're joking!

Haha sorry should have put a /s or something. Was making fun of the fact that the hobbit movies were split from 2 into 3)))

[RichardGoring]

Phew! 

This is the thing you need in a text forum! 

Although the fact several considered it could be serious speaks volumes of some of the crazy decisions some of the movie studios make, especially with sequels. 

[MAB]

10 hours ago, RichardGoring said:

Really? I hope that's not a mistake. It was a great idea to turn three LOTR books into three movies. They had lots of content. It was an awful idea to turn a short single book into three movies, because there wasn't sufficient content and (to me) it felt like they had to expand things too much and add in a lot that didn't really contribute a lot to the main story or the overall experience.

That in turn caused it not to be nearly as popular. And so LEGO got burned by poor merchandising sales. And we lost LEGO LOTR for a decade.

I guess we will never know if The Hobbit performed worse at the cinema because it was three movies rather than being two movies, or just one movie like previous Hobbit films. Personally, I enjoyed all three and I didn't find it too bloated. In fact for the Hobbit I prefer the extended editions over the theatrical ones. It was not LOTR good, but I still enjoyed it and I think it would have been lacking compared to what was the final product if it had been just two or one movie.

Similarly, we will never know if being three movies rather than one or two impacted on the sales of LEGO sets. If there was just one wave, or two waves, overall sales would almost certainly be lower than the three waves we had but whether that would be better for LOTR LEGO fans of the time. I know a lot of people blamed the rumoured change from two to three movies as responsible for not getting a third wave of LOTR sets and instead getting the third wave of The Hobbit sets. But LOTR sales were also not particularly good at the time. If there were just two movies for The Hobbit and no third wave of The Hobbit sets, LEGO might have cut its losses and not done the third wave of LOTR if one was planned. It was that difficult stage when LEGO had not hit the popularity heights, it was pre-LEGO Movie, pre-adult friendly sets, yet aimed at older kids and probably had a narrow audience because of it. The target audience was all over the place, some were 8-14, some 9-14, some 10-14, Orthanc was 14+, polybags were 6-12. They seemed not to know who they were aiming at. Which in one way was good for adult buyers of the time as it meant you could pick up the sets at a very good price, and you could also buy extra figures very cheaply too as Castle fans deprived of Castle for a few years were buying the discounted sets for parts and needed to get rid of the licensed figures.

[RichardGoring]

Yes, fair points.

Hindsight and all that, plus applying current ideas to the past. But I'm also glad it's not three (or even nine!) Gollum movies, so they can try and concentrate on making one good movie to get people excited and engaged with it.

[TheDoctor]

I wonder what the extent of the model will be this time?

The 2012 version roughly captured this portion...
(minus one window)                                                                                                                     (I also forgot just how basic the old set is!)


But I didn't really realise just how HUGE Bag End is!
The WETA model is by far the best reference for scale, it's actually so large you can't even see additional windows on the left-hand side as well as a back door which wraps around the side.


I think we'll see a similar portion again, which includes the Study window as well as the extra bedroom window to the right of the front door.

Problem is, that's only 3 rooms represented (Hall, Study & Bedroom)
It would arguably be missing the most important room of any Hobbit hole; the kitchen!

Edited January 17 by TheDoctor

[MAB]

3 hours ago, TheDoctor said:

It would arguably be missing the most important room of any Hobbit hole; the kitchen!

The original set found room to have a cooking area, just not a complete stand alone kitchen. And also had plenty of food and drink to suggest a feast.

I'm really not sure how much they will do next time, as the original set was substantial enough in size to depict a hobbit house pretty well. I don't think the size is the problem with the old one now, it is more the detail in the design. As you say, it looks quite basic now compared to modern sets. It was mainly a studs up box with a few SNOT parts for attaching windows. I imagine the next one will have a lot more small detail rather than the large slopes used in the walls. And using more small parts would mean it is not all that much larger in scale. It is a bit like doing a City house in LEGO or a building in Modulars, they don't have to be done to realistic scale or number of rooms to look good. I'd prefer fewer large rooms than many that are too small (and parts intensive for the walls).

 

 

[MAB]

3 hours ago, RichardGoring said:

Yes, fair points.

Hindsight and all that, plus applying current ideas to the past. But I'm also glad it's not three (or even nine!) Gollum movies, so they can try and concentrate on making one good movie to get people excited and engaged with it.

Even at the time there was a lot of discussion about The Hobbit being three movies as the reason for not getting Gondor or a third LOTR wave. And for the love of ships by kids as the reason we got the Pirates of Umbar ship and not Gondor. Obviously, we didn't know The LEGO Movie would kick off the popularity of LEGO, or that LEGO would start appealing to adults outside of the traditional AFOL fanbase, or that LEGO LOTR would become so popular. I wish we had, as I would have stocked up even more than I did. There were discussions and reports about the sets being heavily discounted though. Orthanc was the only set I wasn't able to buy at a decent discount. Everything else I got at between 30-50% off, and even more off towards the end. Although those were the days that most non-exclusive sets were available at some stage at 30% off and even then did not sell out very fast. Even retailers knew something was wrong, as some were giving 50% discounts on the final The Hobbit wave about a month after release. It is crazy to think what prices were available for some of those sets, you'd never get close to that now from a retailer. I remember posting Lonely Mountain and Battle of Five Armies on a LEGO deals discussion and others saying The Lonely Mountain at £50 was just about right, but that BOFA was still well overpriced at £30 and that it would be a poor investment. The LOTR game (50011) also wasn't selling well. I only picked a couple up for £15 each as I didn't think I'd ever use the parts and didn't really have any use for the microfigs, especially as I had already purchased all the figures at 35p each on the old online PAB. Then a clearance type place must have bought out the remaining stocks as the game disappeared completely then came back a few months later but only on their website and they had 1000s of them at £20 each (retail price was £30), even when they had been selling on ebay for closer to £100 by that stage.  I miss those days!

 

[zoth33]

22 hours ago, kuzyabricks said:

 

Haha sorry should have put a /s or something. Was making fun of the fact that the hobbit movies were split from 2 into 3)))

It's all good.  It's hard to read sarcasm in text form.  Also the fact that some people come up with some crazy stuff all over the internet just makes it hard to tell.  

[TheDoctor]

15 hours ago, MAB said:

 Although those were the days that most non-exclusive sets were available at some stage at 30% off and even then did not sell out very fast. Even retailers knew something was wrong, as some were giving 50% discounts on the final The Hobbit wave about a month after release. It is crazy to think what prices were available for some of those sets, you'd never get close to that now from a retailer. I remember posting Lonely Mountain and Battle of Five Armies on a LEGO deals discussion and others saying The Lonely Mountain at £50 was just about right, but that BOFA was still well overpriced at £30 and that it would be a poor investment.

Yeah, I remember the huge discounts in the UK too.

The one that sticks in my mind was 79018 The Lonely Mountain getting reduced to £40 in Argos! I picked up two.

I wish I'd have bought 50 79015 Witch-king Battles when they were on clearance.
In hindsight, it's obvious that that would become a desirable set, but I never expected the price of Smaug to climb so high.

(I keep my two in PP ziplocs inside a HDPE box filled with Silica Gel sachets. So far so good, no powder, oil or stickyness on the wings.)

Edited January 18 by TheDoctor

[Artanis I]

Meanwhile in Australia, because the first 2 waves sold so poorly, (and I got multiples with deep discount) stock of the 3rd wave was almost non-existent. Retailers effectively said 'we don't want much of that, thanks' and it sold out in days, before I even saw the movie.

[chris6507]

12 hours ago, Artanis I said:

Meanwhile in Australia, because the first 2 waves sold so poorly, (and I got multiples with deep discount) stock of the 3rd wave was almost non-existent. Retailers effectively said 'we don't want much of that, thanks' and it sold out in days, before I even saw the movie.

I was waiting for a 20% off on the lonely mountain, but they sold out so fast everywhere that I ended up having to pay 20% over rrp.

[kuzyabricks]

22 hours ago, TheDoctor said:

Yeah, I remember the huge discounts in the UK too.

The one that sticks in my mind was 79018 The Lonely Mountain getting reduced to £40 in Argos! I picked up two.

I wish I'd have bought 50 79015 Witch-king Battles when they were on clearance.
In hindsight, it's obvious that that would become a desirable set, but I never expected the price of Smaug to climb so high.

(I keep my two in PP ziplocs inside a HDPE box filled with Silica Gel sachets. So far so good, no powder, oil or stickyness on the wings.)

Wow! That sounds amazing. I hope one day Lego releases a theme that makes me excited enough to pick up the entire line. Really wish I was a bit older during that beautiful Lord of the rings/hobbit release. 

[Legoman123]

The blueprint/layout for Bag End is a lot bigger than I thought, it’s obviously safe to say we won’t be getting a Lego set based around that with the piece count we’ve been given.  However I am a little concerned that just over 2000 pieces simply isn’t enough to give us the bang end we want.  I feel it will be barely bigger than the last version to be honest and have a very lacklustre interior.  
 

Are we expecting it to be fully enclosed or open back. 

[TheDoctor]

36 minutes ago, Legoman123 said:

2000 pieces simply isn’t enough to give us the bang end we want.
 

Are we expecting it to be fully enclosed or open back. 

Yeah, it is a small piece count when you take into account the amount of pieces the foliage detail will take up on the outside. (plus Gandalf's cart!)
I think it will be marginally bigger than the last one, and it will definitely have a detailed interior and probably a light brick for the fire.

I'm expecting it to be more of a 'desk set' than the others.
Here's hoping it's not a vignette with pieces wasted on the base!

(still annoyed at how many pieces the 'enclosure' for the book nook will inevitably eat up )

[Legoman123]

56 minutes ago, TheDoctor said:

Yeah, it is a small piece count when you take into account the amount of pieces the foliage detail will take up on the outside. (plus Gandalf's cart!)
I think it will be marginally bigger than the last one, and it will definitely have a detailed interior and probably a light brick for the fire.

I'm expecting it to be more of a 'desk set' than the others.
Here's hoping it's not a vignette with pieces wasted on the base!

(still annoyed at how many pieces the 'enclosure' for the book nook will inevitably eat up )

Has it been confirmed we will get Gandalf’s cart? I suppose it makes sense to include it I’d just rather it wasn’t as it takes up even more pieces.

[Balrogofmorgoth]

I think The Hobbit movies were ill received simply because of the insane liberties taken. Liberties were taken in LOTR too, and some of those make people really mad, but overall LOTR does a much better job of understanding where the core of the original lies (to borrow Tolkien’s own phrase), whereas the liberties taken in The Hobbit just do nothing but bring it down 

[THELEGOBATMAN]

1 hour ago, Legoman123 said:

Has it been confirmed we will get Gandalf’s cart? I suppose it makes sense to include it I’d just rather it wasn’t as it takes up even more pieces.

It hasn't. We know nothing about this set besides it being 10354 Bag End with 2017 pieces, releasing in April. Not even a price...

(Which I hope we get soon, because if it's 200€ or less I'll have to finally but an Icons LotR set.)

[MAB]

8 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

I think The Hobbit movies were ill received simply because of the insane liberties taken. Liberties were taken in LOTR too, and some of those make people really mad, but overall LOTR does a much better job of understanding where the core of the original lies (to borrow Tolkien’s own phrase), whereas the liberties taken in The Hobbit just do nothing but bring it down 

Ill received. Yet the trilogy took over $2.9 billion worldwide.

[RichardGoring]

10 minutes ago, MAB said:

Ill received. Yet the trilogy took over $2.9 billion worldwide.

Pah! Don't try to let mere wildly commercial success to tarnish our narrative! 

I did see a rather good breakdown of the differences between LOTF and The Hobbit, and of the many things included, I would summarize it as time. With the director change, Peter Jackson came in very late to the process. With LOTR, they spent so long planning everything beforehand so it was as they wanted. With The Hobbit, they were far more rushed and less prepared, including handing out script rewrites on the day of filming.

[TheDoctor]

I think people are far too critical of the Hobbit Trilogy and whilst I agree it is drawn out in places and did not necessitate 3 films, I will always be grateful for it giving us plots from the Silmarillion which would otherwise never be committed to film.

But to return to the topic of LEGO...

I was very pleased when this part was released a few years ago:


We now finally have a decent Arkenstone compared to whatever this was!
(I presume it was based off some concept art, similar to Dwalin's Jade green axe that was in the set, but I don't think was in the film)

Edited January 21 by TheDoctor

[THELEGOBATMAN]

31 minutes ago, TheDoctor said:

I think people are far too critical of the Trilogy [...]

Isn't it like... the single most praised trilogy of all time? I can't think of any other that people love so much, and the same time is so iconic.

[Cyprinus]

8 hours ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

Isn't it like... the single most praised trilogy of all time? I can't think of any other that people love so much, and the same time is so iconic.

The LotR trilogy is iconic and beloved. Hobbit, not so much (though Amazon's shitshow redeemed its image a fair bit).

[THELEGOBATMAN]

21 minutes ago, Cyprinus said:

Hobbit, not so much (though Amazon's shitshow redeemed its image a fair bit).

Not really, that's just what happens when a new project releases in an otherwise periodical franchise.

Same thing happened with the Star Wars Prequels when the Sequels were releasing—even though they weren't received better than the Sequels when they released back then, suddenly people started liking them because there's a new thing to hate on.

[zoth33]

4 hours ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

Not really, that's just what happens when a new project releases in an otherwise periodical franchise.

Same thing happened with the Star Wars Prequels when the Sequels were releasing—even though they weren't received better than the Sequels when they released back then, suddenly people started liking them because there's a new thing to hate on.

The prequels has it's fans more so than the Sequels which are utter trash.  yes there was some hate on the prequels but not on the level it is now with Disney Star wars.  

[DonQuixote]

Absolutely agree