Lord of the Rings Ongoing Discussion

[zoth33]

8 hours ago, RichardGoring said:

The secondary market price for old sets and the length of time since sets were last available are both factors that LEGO will take into account, but so is current market demand.

Indiana Jones sets were last available a long time ago and prices on the secondary market are really high. They released some good sets - one of which was truly excellent - and all at a decent price and range of price points. And it flopped. The market demand isn't there and LEGO would probably make a lot more money with something that is currently popular and is new, so they have a larger target market of everyone, rather than the smaller (but still decently sized) subset of people who don't have it from when it was first released.

On the other hand, Star Wars and Harry Potter keep getting the same things released year after year which seem to sell in vulgar numbers and make billions for LEGO, all while older sets are still priced incredibly high, but also boatloads of them are available for cheap on Craigslist as people clear out old toys they no longer use.

History suggests that LEGO don't like to release the same thing again for some themes.

History suggests that LEGO churn out the same thing year after year for other themes.

My point is, it's a cyclical argument where both things can be true, depending your view point. Wish lists are nice, but logic can be hard to apply. Let alone the more complex nuances like licensing agreements (Bombur not being a named character in Rivendell, for example), parts budgets, logistics, opportunity cost, and lots of other stuff.

I don't think that was Bombur in Rivendell isn't it supposed to be Gloin.  Gimli's father Gloin was there  Bombur was not.  If Rivendell was based off the Hobbit then all the dwarves could have been in the set.  

[RichardGoring]

31 minutes ago, zoth33 said:

I don't think that was Bombur in Rivendell isn't it supposed to be Gloin.  Gimli's father Gloin was there  Bombur was not.  If Rivendell was based off the Hobbit then all the dwarves could have been in the set.  

Oops, yes! That one. 

1 hour ago, Lordhelmet said:

Do were remember why Gloin wasn't named in the set?  Was it a conflict with the Hobbit IP, or just because he was not named in the film?

I don't think it was ever explicitly said, but it's something license related. The suspicion is that the license is for LotR and he's not named in the film, so can't be named in the set. There was an interview with the designers where the name was mentioned by the interviewer and they all jumped on it pretty quickly to say that it was 'just a random dwarf', so they clearly didn't want to publicly say who it was.

[zoth33]

Just now, RichardGoring said:

Oops, yes! That one. 

No problem.  It's a lot of dwarves to keep track of.  I still need to get that set eventually.  Probably sometime next year.  Gotta make it through the holidays.  Then can start saving up for sets for next year too.  

[MAB]

21 hours ago, RichardGoring said:

On the other hand, Star Wars and Harry Potter keep getting the same things released year after year which seem to sell in vulgar numbers and make billions for LEGO, all while older sets are still priced incredibly high, but also boatloads of them are available for cheap on Craigslist as people clear out old toys they no longer use.

And the older ones rarely sell, but do occasionally sell. Most HP and the more popular Star Wars sets are not worth investing in because they will be done again and dont hold their value if selling on as used once you are done with them. The weirder ones that won't get a remake can do better but there are always other cheap sets from the franchise available.  But those old (sealed) ones do sell if the right collector comes along and has to have it, and in that sense it is worth just setting a high price and stashing away.

I'm not sure I'd want LOTR to become like HP. On one hand, is great to get a huge range of sets. But on the other hand, when you are getting 10 different Harry Potter (or Frodo) figures a year with slightly different prints, or you buy a (insert scene) set here and two years later they do the same scene again, looking better at 50% bigger and 75% more expensive,  then a long awaited figure in a huge set where all the other figures are repeats, it just becomes tiresome. I never really collected HP (but have some sets) although I used to collect SW but not as a must-collect-everything type collector. I think I had something like 35 Lukes of which about 20 were slightly different but just five main outfits and in the end got rid of all the duplicate outfits, keeping two of each type for display/MOCs. I don't really care about variations in creases in his white tunic. While getting new outfits and scenes is great, I already have the four different Frodos from the first round (in reality just two outfits) and another 4 MOC figures in other outfits. It is even worse if the sets are all adult priced and duplicate the past. Despite being beautiful, I didn't buy Rivendell. I have all the named characters already (aside from old Bilbo and his parts were on PAB) and I used its design to build a smaller version (but bigger than the old Council set) that fits on my shelving so it was not worth buying. But then, it would probably be just as annoying to get smaller sets of Frodo with Sam, Frodo with Gandalf, Frodo with Gollum, and a mid sized set of Frodo with Sam, Gollum and Faramir, and a really large set with repeats of everyone plus a single Gondor soldier. There is the feeling of missing out if you are not buying the small sets as they are duplicating figures or repeating scenes, when in reality you don't actually want them as it is all duplication.

[RichardGoring]

5 hours ago, MAB said:

...I'm not sure I'd want LOTR to become like HP. On one hand, is great to get a huge range of sets. But on the other hand, when you are getting 10 different Harry Potter (or Frodo) figures a year with slightly different prints, or you buy a (insert scene) set here and two years later they do the same scene again, looking better at 50% bigger and 75% more expensive,  then a long awaited figure in a huge set where all the other figures are repeats, it just becomes tiresome...

With you on this. I would prefer the sets they release to be of high quality and timeless, so that when/if they do re-releases, it feels OK to say no.

[Yoggington]

Well I finally did it, I bought Rivendell. Should keep me entertained as a Christmas build.

[Altair1]

16 minutes ago, Yoggington said:

Well I finally did it, I bought Rivendell.

Congrats! I honestly do not see how a true LOTR fan can choose not to buy Rivendell if he/she has the money for it. It is not just the best existing LOTR set, it is also one of the most beautiful sets that Lego has ever made overall.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Altair1

[GeoBrick]

1 hour ago, Yoggington said:

Well I finally did it, I bought Rivendell. Should keep me entertained as a Christmas build.

It will.

 Block your calendar between Christmas and New Year's Eve.

[Lion King]

Without reading countless pages (including this current one), are we expecting another LOTR set?

[Cyprinus]

2 minutes ago, Lion King said:

Without reading countless pages (including this current one), are we expecting another LOTR set?

Bag End in April, possibly another one later in the year.

[Lion King]

25 minutes ago, Cyprinus said:

Bag End in April, possibly another one later in the year.

Thanks!

[mtrsteve]

On 11/26/2024 at 7:22 AM, MAB said:

Those prices are not ridiculous to other people though. That is why transactions take place. If sellers want to sell, then prices have to be realistic not ridiculous. But they only have to be realistic to the people willing to pay most. If I have ten items to sell and 100 people want it, I don't care what 90% of the people are willing to pay. I'm selling to the people in the top 10%, even if the other 90% think those people are paying ridiculous prices. The 90% can go without as they are not willing to pay the going rate. I'd even say that what many of the 90% are wanting to pay is ridiculously low. I see it all the time selling on ebay, people making offers way below the market value. But they can go without. About a year ago, I sold my last spare Palantir. LEGO were selling them for about 50p when they were current. I had one in my BL store for £50. Someone messaged me asking if I would accept £10. I refused and they messaged again with a rant about price gouging and a crazy price for a toy ball. I offered to sell them a different coloured marbled Zamor sphere for the price they were willing to pay. But they weren't actually interested in getting a toy ball, they wanted a specific coloured one that is very hard to find now because of demand. I blocked them, re-priced at £60 and it sold within a few months. Now the going price for new is £100+, a used one recently sold on BL in the UK for nearly £80. My £60 price for a toy ball was not disgusting or ridiculous, and actually looks like it was a decent price for the buyer now.

As to whether they should re-release sets that were released 10 years ago, what LEGO cares about is whether they would sell now. They obviously believe that there is an adult market for LOTR sets now, as they have released two large predominantly display sets aimed at adults, plus further Brickheadz display sets with little play value other than the build process. I assume that they don't think there is a marker for LOTR children's playset toys though as they have not attempted to reboot the theme with any sets aimed at children. I also assume that they do not believe there is a market for either children's toys or adult display sets for The Hobbit, as they have not done any. In that case, the reason for not releasing them again in future is not because they have been released before but because they don't believe they will sell well enough. And I can understand that, as The Hobbit fandom, especially among adults, is not in the same league as for LOTR, and I cannot remember the last time I saw The Hobbit movie merchandise for sale. It doesn't matter if there are some people willing to pay high prices on the secondary market, that does not show that there is sufficient demand for re-releasing old sets.

If LEGO believe that there is a large enough market for adult aimed display sets for The Hobbit, or children's sets, then there is nothing stopping them making those sets (if they get agreement from Warner/New Line). Having made them before and some people wanting the sets or just the figures as the few available are too expensive for them to afford is not a business case for that. Having released them before is not an excuse to release them again, if there is no real market for them. I imagine it is far more lucrative for LEGO to be releasing sets with larger fan bases that buy merchandise such as Home Alone, various Disney movies, Indy, BTTF, Ghostbusters, and of course Star Wars and Marvel. And LOTR.

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. 

[Balrogofmorgoth]

I can only speak for myself. I have spent what I would call ridiculous amounts of money for lego on the Devi dart market, even for minifigs. Now obviously since I paid it, it was worth the exchange to me. But they were also the only options, and it made other parts of life tougher having spent the money on that. In the end, if someone willingly completes the transaction then the time was worth the price to then at least to a degree. But that doesn’t mean the prices aren’t disgusting. It just means there aren’t any other options. Putting new ones on the market would be an infinitely better option for people, there’s no debate there

[MAB]

7 hours ago, mtrsteve said:

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. 

Yet if people are willing to pay the prices, then they are realistic prices as they are the market rate. Like anything that is sold, the value is what it is sold for, that is what it is worth to the buyer and seller at the time. What other people value it at is irrelevant. Just because other people don't value it as highly it does not mean the price paid is disgusting. If someone offered me £6 for something that I can sell for £60, then their offer is no less disgusting or ridiculous than the price someone else is willing to pay and the low-baller clearly doesn’t know the market or possibly even appreciate what the object is. Their offer of 1/10 of the price that someone is willing to pay is just as disgusting as the 10x more than their valuation that someone else is willing to pay.

Why is £60 a disgusting and ridiculous price for an incredibly hard to find collectable item? As that is what the palantir Zamor sphere is, not just a small plastic ball. If someone wants a small plastic ball and only sees it as a small plastic ball, they can buy a cheap small plastic ball instead of a hard to find collectable. The cost of the raw goods may be similar for both, but for those that appreciate what they are and know the market, they will know they vary massively in value. Just like the Rivendell set is worth significantly more than the equivalent weight in random LEGO bricks, random clone bricks or other plastic objects of the same weight. Or like a Sauron minifigure is worth significantly more than a Harry Potter minifigure. 

[MAB]

6 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

But that doesn’t mean the prices aren’t disgusting. It just means there aren’t any other options. Putting new ones on the market would be an infinitely better option for people, there is no debate there

There is another option. In fact, at least two. Go without or buy something similar but cheaper. There is also debate that continually putting re-released products onto the market is not necessarily good for consumers / users. In this case, for example, I'm glad they did a new palantir in Barad-Dur instead of re-issuing the old one again. Not only does it protect the rarity and hence value of what I already have, it also introduces something different to the market. And if anything, a plain black minifig head is more realistic in size and has the advantage that it can be held by a minifig. And the printed one can be used when you want the vision.

[Balrogofmorgoth]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

There is another option. In fact, at least two. Go without or buy something similar but cheaper. There is also debate that continually putting re-released products onto the market is not necessarily good for consumers / users. In this case, for example, I'm glad they did a new palantir in Barad-Dur instead of re-issuing the old one again. Not only does it protect the rarity and hence value of what I already have, it also introduces something different to the market. And if anything, a plain black minifig head is more realistic in size and has the advantage that it can be held by a minifig. And the printed one can be used when you want the vision.

I wouldn’t call new and improved minifigs of Thorin’s Company a “re-issue”, it would be a different and hopefully better product. Also, “go without or buy something similar but cheaper” isn’t a reasonable option to be honest 

[MAB]

6 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

I wouldn’t call new and improved minifigs of Thorin’s Company a “re-issue”, it would be a different and hopefully better product. Also, “go without or buy something similar but cheaper” isn’t a reasonable option to be honest 

If they have been done once and are then done again in a similar way, I'd call that a reissue. For me, the bigger point is still whether there is a market. I don't believe that there is any significant child (age 10-14) demand for The Hobbit as the movies are not current and there is no other merchandise on shelves. And for adults, are there enough fans willing to drop multiple hundreds of dollars on a 18+ set for a series of movies that are not well that received compared to LOTR and the other movie franchises they are currently doing? Although at best they might do like they did with POTC and do a one off Hobbit set including some or all the dwarves. And that would be good for resellers, as it would bring in new people wanting the other characters like Beorn, Bard, Azog, Goblin King and goblins, etc and of course Smaug and send prices even higher.

And why isn't buy something else a reasonable option? For the palantir,  for example, why is a lime/black version necessary? There are other cheap options available if you just want it as a palantir, you could buy a Zamor sphere in pearl dark grey or black, or a black minifigure head, or the new palantir printed head, or the head with the eye of Sauron.  If people want the exact one that only came in one expensive set, then they have to appreciate that it is not just a cheap plastic ball and wont be be priced like other cheap plastic balls. 

[mtrsteve]

13 hours ago, MAB said:

Yet if people are willing to pay the prices, then they are realistic prices as they are the market rate. Like anything that is sold, the value is what it is sold for, that is what it is worth to the buyer and seller at the time. What other people value it at is irrelevant. Just because other people don't value it as highly it does not mean the price paid is disgusting. If someone offered me £6 for something that I can sell for £60, then their offer is no less disgusting or ridiculous than the price someone else is willing to pay and the low-baller clearly doesn’t know the market or possibly even appreciate what the object is. Their offer of 1/10 of the price that someone is willing to pay is just as disgusting as the 10x more than their valuation that someone else is willing to pay.

Why is £60 a disgusting and ridiculous price for an incredibly hard to find collectable item? As that is what the palantir Zamor sphere is, not just a small plastic ball. If someone wants a small plastic ball and only sees it as a small plastic ball, they can buy a cheap small plastic ball instead of a hard to find collectable. The cost of the raw goods may be similar for both, but for those that appreciate what they are and know the market, they will know they vary massively in value. Just like the Rivendell set is worth significantly more than the equivalent weight in random LEGO bricks, random clone bricks or other plastic objects of the same weight. Or like a Sauron minifigure is worth significantly more than a Harry Potter minifigure. 

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.

Edited November 29, 2024 by mtrsteve

[Lordhelmet]

7 hours ago, mtrsteve said:

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.

This can be said for pretty much every collectible out there.  Any cards, toys, cars, stamps, coins, guitars, you name it every collectible gains more value than the value of its base components. I think people are paying more for the experience of collecting than thinking that somehow the base components value is significantly higher for one collectible over the others that are similar but not as rare.

[MAB]

7 hours ago, mtrsteve said:

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.

You are right, it is not worth £60. Soon after I sold a new one for £60, someone else bought a used one for close to £80. So the market value was higher than I thought. That is what value is. I don't value things in terms of their production value as that is never the price you pay, especially for LEGO.  I cannot turn 5c worth of plastic into what I want it to be. 

[Black Falcon]

On 11/26/2024 at 8:04 PM, Lordhelmet said:

Do were remember why Gloin wasn't named in the set?  Was it a conflict with the Hobbit IP, or just because he was not named in the film?

He wasn´t named in the Film, if I remember correctly he was also just named Old Dwarf or something in the credits. Though in the end "everyone" knows who it is, so it doesn´t really make a difference if he is named in the set or not. Actually happy he got added anyways.

On 11/27/2024 at 10:25 AM, MAB said:

I'm not sure I'd want LOTR to become like HP. On one hand, is great to get a huge range of sets. But on the other hand, when you are getting 10 different Harry Potter (or Frodo) figures a year with slightly different prints, or you buy a (insert scene) set here and two years later they do the same scene again, looking better at 50% bigger and 75% more expensive,  then a long awaited figure in a huge set where all the other figures are repeats, it just becomes tiresome.

Well everything has pro and cons, in the end if they would make normal Sets again they would be wider avaiable to more people and I wouldn´t mind that there would be new Sets of the same location after a few years. And unlike Harry Potter, where most of the sets are taking place in Hogwarts LotR has more locations to offer, which probably wouldn´t repeat as fast as the Castle Sets do - especially since one of the main reasons for the 3 year circle is so kids that come into the theme already missed out some parts of the castle.

 

[MAB]

5 hours ago, Black Falcon said:

And unlike Harry Potter, where most of the sets are taking place in Hogwarts LotR has more locations to offer, which probably wouldn´t repeat as fast as the Castle Sets do - especially since one of the main reasons for the 3 year circle is so kids that come into the theme already missed out some parts of the castle.

 

I would think HP has more possible locations than LOTR for sets. They have been able to  explore much more outside of Hogwarts, and those locations can be done as playsets and still remain obvious where they are. I think also a downside of LOTR is that many locations cannot be done justice without a high piece count. 

[Balrogofmorgoth]

45 minutes ago, MAB said:

I would think HP has more possible locations than LOTR for sets. They have been able to  explore much more outside of Hogwarts, and those locations can be done as playsets and still remain obvious where they are. I think also a downside of LOTR is that many locations cannot be done justice without a high piece count. 

Hard disagree. LOTR definitely has more location options overall. But I do agree that a lot of them can’t easily be done without being really expensive, but it’s not impossible 

Edited November 30, 2024 by Balrogofmorgoth

[hikouki]

7 hours ago, Black Falcon said:

He wasn´t named in the Film, if I remember correctly he was also just named Old Dwarf or something in the credits. Though in the end "everyone" knows who it is, so it doesn´t really make a difference if he is named in the set or not. Actually happy he got added anyways.

...

 

I wouldn't mind if they keep making these unnamed named characters. LOL

[Black Falcon]

38 minutes ago, MAB said:

I would think HP has more possible locations than LOTR for sets. They have been able to  explore much more outside of Hogwarts, and those locations can be done as playsets and still remain obvious where they are. I think also a downside of LOTR is that many locations cannot be done justice without a high piece count. 

In Harry Potter they repeat the castle locations every three years that limits other locations they are doing each year - that and the fact, that Lego focuses more on locations from the first films since most kids have seen those but not all of them the later ones. In Lord of the Rings, aiming it at adults, Lego wouldn´t have to worry about that. And even if we just consider all locations they could display without worrying that much, I couldn´t tell which of the themes has more locations - probably you are right and it is Harry Potter, but even then I don´t think it is that much more, Even though there are way more films. In the end it also depends on how big or small you want to place it. Like, for Harry Potter you could probably have 100 locations from the castle alone, with all the classrooms, common rooms, offices, toiletts ;), tasks from the philosopher stone etc. etc. If all of those would be worth displaying is another thing.

But if we consider every location in Hogwarts an own location, we can´t really count something like Moria just one location for instance. You have the gate, the chamber, the bridge and the top of the mountain. Again, not everything would become a set but there a plenty locations in Lord of the Rings too - but overall Harry Potter surely has more, with all the Diagon Alley shops and Hogwarts rooms.

 

9 minutes ago, hikouki said:

I wouldn't mind if they keep making these unnamed named characters. LOL

Well basically they can do everything shown in the films. Though they won´t make a set with to many unknown characters ofc.