mtrsteve

Imma go out on a limb and say we aren't getting any LotR sets with yellow skin tone.

The Rangers were in the movie too, you just couldn't see them cause they good at what they do XD

Yes, autocorrect FTL. Edit FTW

Yeah, that might rule out Bombadil, but I think they could do semi generic Dunedain Ranger without issue, same way they "didnt" do Gloin in Rivendel

It really will be interesting to see how they handle the minifig line up for bag end. As others have already pointed out, leaning into Bilbo's party with lots of hobbits is one option but risks sort of generic minifig (noone really has a strong opinion of what farmer cotton should look like). Giving a nod to the hobbit with some or all of the dwarfs is another option, and if I'm not mistaken can even still be LotR timeline as Bilbo continied to be visited by dwarfs from time to time. But mold/unique piece issues could get in the way. I wonder if there's some third path they could take, like including some Dunedain rangers watching over the shire, or a little Tom Bombadil/Goldberry and old man willow side build?

Again, and I recognize this is being pedantic, the 1/2 inch plastic sphere has a value of about 5c. That is the material manufacturing cost. We as a marketplace of people have added some $59 of *emotional value* to it due to subject matter, 'rarity', etc, and decided we get enough enjoyment or satisfaction out of it that the *purchase* is worth that. Again, nothing wrong with that. I just think it's healthier to recognize that the *item* is not worth $60. A huge part of that price is the *experience* of buying and owning it. This is the collector mindset, of which I am one. So I think we agree in essence, I just find that it helps me stay sane in our consumer society to separate the value of the object from the value of the pursuit. Edit: the Zamor sphere happens to be a particularly salient example of this divorce in value. Once you get into sets and Minifigures, subjectives like the beauty of the object also enter the picture and introduce significant subjective value, but again that's largely emotional value.

I would counter that just because someone is willing to pay the price, doesn't mean the price isn't ridiculous, and certainly doesn't make the object 'worth' the price. A bunch of what's baked into that price is emotional valence. The fear of missing out, the desire or even compulsion to complete a set or collection. Those emotional forces will lead people to convince themselves to pay the price. $60 for a 1/2" plastic ball IS disgusting, and IS ridiculous. But to your defence, it certainly doesn't make you a bad person for expecting to receive market price.

I hope we're all just being a little cheeky. Brickheadz are definitely. Love it or hate it offering though. Looking forward to more deets on bag end, and about to order barad dur tonight when insiders weekend kicks off! (Full disclosure, I'm only a completionist for my minifig collection, so there's lots of sets, especially hobbit and Brickheadz ones, that just never interested me too much)

As someone who got raked over the coals for saying the LotR line is back because technically it's Icons and Brickheadz, the lesson I learned is none of this new wave counts towards completion of the LotR theme, because none of it has that theme as a label. As others have pointed out, individual collectors can draw whatever line they want for completionism. Anyone who naively added the middle earth brick heads to 'complete' their LotR collection actually just has an incomplete Brickheadz theme collection now. ;)

Now I'm picturing a reskin of hagrid into balrog, and can't stop laughing

Yes, you are the only one Yeah, I'll agree scale seems inconsistent in the movies. And I bet you're right that brickbuilt is more likely, given recent Lego trends. I think either could be done really well, and I'd be happy to see either hit the shelves! Part of why I'd personally like a bigfig one is that I could always MOC a brickbuilt one, and I've had a shot at it before, but I can't really MOC a bigfig.

I was judging off one of the few wide angle shots I could find where there is no perspective magnification occuring. So even within movie canon, that scale is present. I'll die on my hill. Bigfig scale is perfect for a balrog. Whether that's what you'd *prefer* or not is reasonable to disagree on. https://youtu.be/DgNrvnY1mo0?si=ZciR6pvpJRaLNgGK at 1:50 for the reference. They definitely do have him seem bigger in other shots, but lots of those have perspective issues as you say. Parallax makes it impossible to guage

I've literally got the wide angle shot from the movie paused with gandalf and the balrogs on the bridge. The balrogs is standing about 2.5 times the height of gandalf. A big fig is STILL totally reasonable proportions for the movie balrogs, and arguably too big for the book ones. They just seeeeeem bigger. Especially if you add some wings sprouting from the back of the bigfig, it would feel totally to scale.

This is not correct. Canonically balrogs are at most twice the size of a human, or even just the size of a large man. Big fig size would totally suffice.

Sauron-mech just made my day. I'm gonna MOC one after work now for sure.