Lord of the Rings Ongoing Discussion

[Meaf]

The set looks great, but yeah the price is pretty bad. The GWP sounds pretty neat but I can probably live without it, so if I end up getting this one I'm waiting for a sale or lots of bonus Insider points.

23 hours ago, ForgedInLego said:

If it is tariff pricing, why is it 270 Euros? $270 sure, but from what I understand, nothing gets shipped from the US to Europe. On top of that, it is 35% higher than the "expected" price of $200, much higher than the tariffs

I'm guessing it's less to do with tariffs and more because Lego just thinks they can get away with it. Most of the licensed 18+ sets are pretty overpriced, so we probably just got kind of lucky with Rivendell and Barad-Dur.

[kuzyabricks]

11 hours ago, MAB said:

They have already put the most important dwarf from LOTR in Rivendell, along with one other. And if you mean they should have redone Bag End from The Hobbit movies instead, it would be pretty silly to do a flagship set with 12 dwarves and leave one out especially as it would likely be the only The Hobbit set they do.

Possibly down to size of parts. There are some larger parts in Bag End compared to a lot of 1x1 tiles in Rivendell. I guess we will have to wait to see the contents (and price!) to determine value. It will be interesting to see the price per kilogram across the sets.

A bit confused by your comment. What do you mean leave one out? Are you referring to Gimli? And yes a Bag End based on the Hobbit would have been better. None of the poor side parts and 12 fantastic figures. Easy buy right there. 

[Cyprinus]

4 minutes ago, kuzyabricks said:

A bit confused by your comment. What do you mean leave one out? Are you referring to Gimli? And yes a Bag End based on the Hobbit would have been better. None of the poor side parts and 12 fantastic figures. Easy buy right there. 

Except at that point it would probably be the main build we got + the dwarves for about 300$..

[hikouki]

1 hour ago, kuzyabricks said:

A bit confused by your comment. What do you mean leave one out? Are you referring to Gimli? And yes a Bag End based on the Hobbit would have been better. None of the poor side parts and 12 fantastic figures. Easy buy right there. 

 

1 hour ago, Cyprinus said:

Except at that point it would probably be the main build we got + the dwarves for about 300$..

At this rate that they're coming out with the Shire, it will probably be a while til we get a Hobbit-based one.

[DonQuixote]

18 hours ago, JohnTPT17 said:

No. The tutu piece goes straight out, and the other dress piece (like what Alice or Minnie Mouse wears) isn't as "ruffled."

Ok , didn’t know  that. 

Now I can see the €270 value in the set

[kuzyabricks]

4 hours ago, Cyprinus said:

Except at that point it would probably be the main build we got + the dwarves for about 300$..

I would actually gladly pay $270 for that

[Balrogofmorgoth]

5 hours ago, kuzyabricks said:

A bit confused by your comment. What do you mean leave one out? Are you referring to Gimli? And yes a Bag End based on the Hobbit would have been better. None of the poor side parts and 12 fantastic figures. Easy buy right there. 

I don’t think a Bag End based on The Hobbit would necessarily be better at all. In order to come with all 13 Dwarves it would need tons of new molds. Which means many of them would probably reuse parts that are inaccurate and wouldn’t look good. Also, the side builds are charming and add to the atmosphere of the party scene. I would much rather them round out the LOTR movies more than to have one random set from The Hobbit when we know they won’t touch anything else from those films anyway. Makes much more sense to just keep it all based on LOTR and round out that minifig selection.

[Roebuck]

9 hours ago, kuzyabricks said:

12 fantastic figures

Something like this you mean;

No way they could bring back all these retired moulds for this set, just look at how long it took to bring back just the goat:


After 5 years out of production, most moulds are destroyed if they want the part after that they must make a new mould.. 

[MAB]

12 hours ago, kuzyabricks said:

A bit confused by your comment. What do you mean leave one out? Are you referring to Gimli? And yes a Bag End based on the Hobbit would have been better. None of the poor side parts and 12 fantastic figures. Easy buy right there. 

You said you would want a set with 12 dwarves. Which 12 would you include? And why would you not want all 13 from The Hobbit? Bringing back The Hobbit and putting all but one dwarf in a large set would be a stupid move.

2 hours ago, Roebuck said:

 

 

And how would new collectors get Thorin?

Edited March 11 by MAB

[MAB]

On 3/9/2025 at 8:52 PM, Lego Nostalgia said:

Anyone else let down by the set or just me ? looks too small imo

Hobbit Dwarves would have been nice, 2012 set still holds up today, the plates with all the food (sausages,chicken,cherries,baguettes,apples) were nice to have, I doubt we'll get any of those in the set

I hope Helms Deep is next

I expect we will get lots of small parts like cherries, sausages, etc. They are an easy way to make an interior look full and decorated and very cheap to produce. 

[Artanis I]

You can gladly want to pay $270 for eternity, because there is no way a Bag End with all those 13 dwarves is going to be less than $370.

[BrickBob Studpants]

While I definitely would like some Hobbit sets as well, there’s just no way they’d ever include all 13 dwarves in one set  Heck, they couldn’t even be bothered to recolour the Hobbit hairpiece in light bluish grey for Bilbo, so what chance would all these resurrected pieces stand?

[Altair1]

10 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

I don’t think a Bag End based on The Hobbit would necessarily be better at all. In order to come with all 13 Dwarves it would need tons of new molds. Which means many of them would probably reuse parts that are inaccurate and wouldn’t look good. Also, the side builds are charming and add to the atmosphere of the party scene. I would much rather them round out the LOTR movies more than to have one random set from The Hobbit when we know they won’t touch anything else from those films anyway. Makes much more sense to just keep it all based on LOTR and round out that minifig selection.

Hear, hear! Could not agree more.

[Cyprinus]

10 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

Also, the side builds are charming

Dunno if I'd call this take on the Party Tree "charming" :P

[Altair1]

30 minutes ago, Cyprinus said:

Dunno if I'd call this take on the Party Tree "charming" :P

Yes, to me this is the only weak point of the set, and will be my first priority to fix after building it ;-)

[Lordhelmet]

17 minutes ago, Altair1 said:

Yes, to me this is the only weak point of the set, and will be my first priority to fix after building it ;-)

I agree about fixing the party tree, but also agree with the original post that the side builds make the set feel more well rounded and that it is the shire.  I am disappointed about the price (especially in light of Lego financial performance) and the side builds probably contributed to the increase, but they do make the set feel more shire-ish and I think that is a good thing.

Edited March 11 by Lordhelmet

[Balrogofmorgoth]

1 hour ago, Cyprinus said:

Dunno if I'd call this take on the Party Tree "charming" :P

The tree itself may be a crappy design, but I feel that some iteration of the Party Tree is essential for the theme here. The full aesthetic of the side builds is very charming. The stand where Bilbo gives his speech, the party tent, the cake and table, the birthday banner with the party lights, it all adds something I feel is very important to the set

57 minutes ago, Lordhelmet said:

I agree about fixing the party tree, but also agree with the original post that the side builds make the set feel more well rounded and that it is the shire.  I am disappointed about the price (especially in light of Lego financial performance) and the side builds probably contributed to the increase, but they do make the set feel more shire-ish and I think that is a good thing.

I agree. I don’t feel that the side builds take anything away from the main build of Bag End (which I feel is practically perfect). Sure maybe it adds to the price but I still think it’s worth having them there. They add a lot to the simplistic charm of the set. After all, “it’s no bad thing to celebrate a simple life.”

[RichardGoring]

1 hour ago, Lordhelmet said:

... I am disappointed about the price (especially in light of Lego financial performance) ...

They have such good financial performance BECAUSE they charge high prices. They clearly like making a lot of money and are good at charging it, so why wouldn't they continue?

I still harbour hopes that there is a clever play feature in the tree, which is why it looks so bad. Especially in comparison with the rest of the set.

[Lordhelmet]

29 minutes ago, RichardGoring said:

They have such good financial performance BECAUSE they charge high prices. They clearly like making a lot of money and are good at charging it, so why wouldn't they continue?

I still harbour hopes that there is a clever play feature in the tree, which is why it looks so bad. Especially in comparison with the rest of the set.

Agreed that there is no reason for them to stop charging higher prices.  It doesn’t make the practice good, good would be driving value for customers while maintaining good profit margins to be a thriving business.  but there is no incentive for them to do that, so instead we see quality slipping, shortcuts taken (reused prints, stickers), and prices going up faster than inflation.  So I think it is good to call them out on that practice even though there is no incentive for them to change (short of good competition, or people just stopping collecting and building)

[MAB]

24 minutes ago, Lordhelmet said:

Agreed that there is no reason for them to stop charging higher prices.  It doesn’t make the practice good, good would be driving value for customers while maintaining good profit margins to be a thriving business.  but there is no incentive for them to do that, so instead we see quality slipping, shortcuts taken (reused prints, stickers), and prices going up faster than inflation.  So I think it is good to call them out on that practice even though there is no incentive for them to change (short of good competition, or people just stopping collecting and building)

It is interesting to think back 12-13 years ago when LEGO was in a different position and people did not want to buy LOTR and The Hobbit sets. I managed to buy all the LOTR/Hobbit sets (except for Orthanc) with a minimum of 30% off RRP, often 50% off and on a couple of occasions over 60% off. Since that time, LEGO has done a great job at appealing to a much larger number of people and especially to adults by increasing the complexity, part counts and price of sets.

[DonQuixote]

10 hours ago, Roebuck said:

Something like this you mean;

 

Well it seems I have to buy Snowwhite's cottage instead. It's on a discount now. 

[Lordhelmet]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

It is interesting to think back 12-13 years ago when LEGO was in a different position and people did not want to buy LOTR and The Hobbit sets. I managed to buy all the LOTR/Hobbit sets (except for Orthanc) with a minimum of 30% off RRP, often 50% off and on a couple of occasions over 60% off. Since that time, LEGO has done a great job at appealing to a much larger number of people and especially to adults by increasing the complexity, part counts and price of sets.

Agreed sets are better today and price count and detail has increased with smaller new parts, but these types of discounts referenced largely apply to Lego with non-LOTR themes today, looking online 20% off is nearly constant and frequently sets are at higher rates on clearance (I bought the ISD on amazon for 30% off last year a few months after release).  
 

Maybe LOTR is that much more popular today than it was 12 years ago just like Lego is more popular.   (are you saying LOtR probably has the interest for its own theme now given they don’t have the same discounts that other themes have)? 

I think both things can be true (sets look better and are more popular, and Lego is taking value out for customers to drive profit margins).  Unfortunately the latter is not going to stop me from buying, I have all of the LOTR sets and will continue to buy them.  I just like to complain about it once in a while.

[MAB]

On 3/10/2025 at 1:44 PM, mtrsteve said:

I still need to find a way to get the Nazgul from the last GWP so I can keep my complete LotR fig collection going...

All the parts except the hood have been available on PAB and the hood is in the current Wolfpack CMF. There are loads available on bricklink and the price has been dropping and is now down to about $10.

[MAB]

1 minute ago, Lordhelmet said:

Maybe LOTR is that much more popular today than it was 12 years ago just like Lego is more popular.   (are you saying LOtR probably has the interest for its own theme now given they don’t have the same discounts that other themes have)? 

I think both things can be true (sets look better and are more popular, and Lego is taking value out for customers to drive profit margins).  Unfortunately the latter is not going to stop me from buying, I have all of the LOTR sets and will continue to buy them.  I just like to complain about it once in a while.

I don't think LOTR is more popular now than 12 years ago. I don’t think there are more LOTR collectables,  for example, available now compared to 10 or 20 years ago. However, maybe LEGO LOTR is more popular, although it is difficult to know as the number of people buying Rivendell and so on might be the same as the number of people that were buying complete series of sets in the past. Two things that have changed are that it is much more acceptable for adults to buy LEGO these days and people are used to paying much more for (large) sets. Those two things combined mean more adults are buying big LEGO sets for themselves. That also combined with LOTR still being popular (at least for adults) mean that big LOTR sets will sell.

Whether they would sell even better if they did smaller, kid aimed sets, I don't know. I don't think enough kids would buy them to have a wide release in supermarkets and toy stores, and the drop in quality and size might put adults off as they are now used to big sets. It appears that LEGO like to keep them as premium sets that are exclusive to LEGO and often a premium type retailer, rather than going the HP or Star Wars route and have very wide distribution of kid sets in general retail stores plus premium products that are exclusive. That suggests they don't think the small sets (kid) market is viable and hence there is no need for a theme of small sets when they can do one big set a year aimed at adults instead.

[Balrogofmorgoth]

2 hours ago, MAB said:

I don't think LOTR is more popular now than 12 years ago. I don’t think there are more LOTR collectables,  for example, available now compared to 10 or 20 years ago. However, maybe LEGO LOTR is more popular, although it is difficult to know as the number of people buying Rivendell and so on might be the same as the number of people that were buying complete series of sets in the past. Two things that have changed are that it is much more acceptable for adults to buy LEGO these days and people are used to paying much more for (large) sets. Those two things combined mean more adults are buying big LEGO sets for themselves. That also combined with LOTR still being popular (at least for adults) mean that big LOTR sets will sell.

Whether they would sell even better if they did smaller, kid aimed sets, I don't know. I don't think enough kids would buy them to have a wide release in supermarkets and toy stores, and the drop in quality and size might put adults off as they are now used to big sets. It appears that LEGO like to keep them as premium sets that are exclusive to LEGO and often a premium type retailer, rather than going the HP or Star Wars route and have very wide distribution of kid sets in general retail stores plus premium products that are exclusive. That suggests they don't think the small sets (kid) market is viable and hence there is no need for a theme of small sets when they can do one big set a year aimed at adults instead.

LOTR collectibles actually are more popular now than they were 10-15 years ago. WETA and United Cutlery have been releasing new LOTR products now than they ever did before. A ton of retired products have come back and even more new ones have been made and released. And they’re always out of stock pretty quickly. Same thing with the books, I can barely keep up with the different editions being released all the time these days