LOTR & The Hobbit 2012

[Omicron]

That's probably why the latter two aren't getting any more sets.

True, but still will be on the shelves until the stores can't get rid of them and are sent back to Lego. :P

-Omi

[Fives]

True, but still will be on the shelves until the stores can't get rid of them and are sent back to Lego. :P

-Omi

Exactly. They won't be able to sell them because of the new LOTR sets!

[Vindice]

Exactly. They won't be able to sell them because of the new LOTR sets!

to be fair we don't know officially that the other two aren't getting any more sets yet. I think we all need to be patient and see what happens.

Having said that, patience and AFOLs rarely go hand in hand do they.

[Elander]

My mind about licenses, wrong concepts and broken rules:

LEGO itself may be paying more attention to Space now than years ago. But SW's existence is still having negative effects to space. And I am talking about retailers. Specifically my retailers, which seem to have only shelf space and will for a limited number of licenses and last year they decided not to bring any Space Police III because (and I quote) they already have SW anyway. So I go to look for space stuff and they offer me SW. I am right now very afraid of them not bringing Alien Conquest this year.

-Yep, LEGO has produced STAR WARS and another Space-series together in the same time. May be had some of the other Space-lines a false concept (too childish; you know that kids want cool things). I‘ve no idea why LEGO has broke up the “Classic Space” line. It would be interesting if LEGO would produce a new Space line based of the old style. I believe that would sell well.

If now LEGO keep the present “Kingdoms”-style (that is the “Classic Castle”-style; and that style is cool), and would to add the Tolkien license line (and that line is also cool). Than would LEGO has 2x lines (historic line/fantasy line) there sell well. -> I remember that STAR WARS and Mars Mission had also sold well. Why not in combination: Middle-earth & Kingdoms?

I prefer that every license theme has an alternative theme (non-license theme). That this concept to work, that we have seen during other themes.

Which false concept had Harry Potter?

Ok, STAR WARS has produced within 12 years 3x different Slave 1s, different AT-ATs, different AT-STs, different Naboo Star-Fighter, and so forth… But in the case of Harry Potter was the problem that this standard operating procedure (with different Hogwarts Expresses, -castles and Hagrid Huts) to came out in a too short time (2001-2005). These 4 years are definitive too short. I think, in that case LEGO would have found it better to develop modular sets for the different class-rooms. And no complete huge castles. For Hobbit/LOTR is that concept no way….

…and you can really believe me (inform yourself at “tolkiengateway.net” or other websites). Here we would get another problem: How it is possible a lot of things from Tolkiens huge world to transform in LEGO-style (with which skills that could be possible I’ve tried to describe here in this topic).

Pirates of the Caribbean:

“Pirates of the Caribbean” is a wonderful license with a lot of possibilities. For Tortuga, Port Royal or other places could LEGO also to work by CREATOR (that’s also just houses, rocks and caves).

But what I don’t like is that TLC ever and ever again to broke the most important rule. Why they put ever the same minifigures in different LEGO-boxes? Where is here the collector effect? I don’t see the commercial effect? Why should I to buy another LEGO-box along with Jack Sparrow and the same guys if I have exact these versions 3x times? Everybody knows that this bad business is.

And should LEGO in future more work by CREATOR (and I’m firmly convinced that modular CREATOR LEGOs future is; just see alone the economic possibilities) than must not LEGO to put collector minifigures (main-characters) in these modular CREATOR boxes. That is the absolute main-rule number 1! TLC can develop different sets with the same main-character, but no sets in CREATOR style. –Why should somebody to buy “3x times” the same main-character like Indiana Jones (here in that case Bilbo Baggins)? The guy would to feel cheated. –Also bad business! -CREATOR sets are to combinate with soldiers/ “flexible” variable civilians…

In the case that TLC want to put the same character in other different sets –than has different marks to tag that character. TLC has to think about the collector-effect. This collector-effect is very good for that merchandising business and TLCs customizers don’t to feel dull.

So, and now the most important question: How many licenses are economic compatible?

I know 3x kinds of guys. The action-, space- or the (fantasy/adventure)-guy:

-The action-guy become more like the action heroes for example Spiderman, X-men, Batman… -> Yep, for that guy will next year to come up a wonderful license!

-The space-guy has always STAR WARS, no question! Trekkies, I feel sorry for you.

-The fantasy/adventure-guy has at the time POTC and Harry Potter –but how is the situation next late summer?

Harry Potter: I believe that theme ending now. The merchandising will still no longer alive. LEGO Harry Potter Years 5-7 could be the last sign for “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”.

POTC: Puzzling, why put TLC Davy Jones in the Black Pearl? What is about the Flying Dutchman? POTC has enough potential for some waves more! May be clocks TLC that theme and waits for POTC 5? I don’t care….

….but IF next year no more sets (based of Harry Potter and POTC) come out–than (in that case I’m absolute sure) will come the Hobbit and LOTR. And in that case will TLC also definitive fight for a LOTR license. The economic possibilities are amazing!

Like kids “Classic Fantasy” more as “Middle-earth” and would Middle-earth to rob children’s own fantasy? -I believe no! Why:

-At first, the most of the young kids has no idea about Middle-earth. -For these are all guys (from different LEGO-boxes) ordinarily normal cool characters. If they to play with the “Nazguls” or the “King of the Dead” –than these has very cool minifigures and to develop by her own fantasy for these minifigures their story. May be these have an elder brother and he to tell them a bit about Middle-earth.

-the elderly kids: Do these to know something about Middle-earth? –Sure. I can’t to list all the different LOTR-videogames whichever these to play. And now really: What would the elderly kids prefer: -“Classic Fantasy” or “Tolkien license”?

And what do you think about yourself? –Would do you more like a really LEGO Rivendell, Bag End or (like Samwise Gamgee) a big oliphaunt? –or do you prefer more classic fantasy? –Without expensive license and bricked only with LEGOs classic orcs, classic dwarfs and elfs (“I don’t like fantasy” does not apply)^^ ?

…I believe you to know what I prefer.

[Weil]

I don't think each genre needs a license. If you agree kids wouldn't distinguish middle earth LEGO from other fantasy themes then I think that really weakens your argument, LEGO already has all the molds and print designs to produce unlicensed wizards, elves, dwarves, orcs, dragons, monsters and so on. It's therefore liable to be MUCH more costly for LEGO to produce middle earth sets than it is for them to just bring out a new wave of fantasy compatible with Kingdoms. Furthermore these sets will still benefit from any increased demand for fantasy themed sets that the Hobbit films might create. If the license doesn't really add anything then it is such a waste of money to go for it.

Personally I think a large part of what LEGO aim for in a licsense is something that is going to pull kids into LEGO at an early age and that there'll hopefully want more LEGO after the license expires. Star Wars is an obvious exception to this but that license has probably returned old or brought in new older fans of LEGO in a similar way.

For example if your child is going to a birthday party of a kid who you know likes Harry Potter then getting them a Harry Potter LEGO set seems a good idea and it might be all it takes for that child to start collecting LEGO for the next 10 years. Similarly if your a little kid who loves say winne the poo or disney cars and you go into a toy shop then you're instantly going to recognise those sets, want to get them, go home and play with them and then the next time you go into a toy shop you may well just recognise any LEGO set as something you want to play with.

Personally I don't think Hobbit sets would achieve this, you can't really be sure until the films come out because I don't know whether they're aiming it at fans of the LOTR films or this time going for younger kids and you also don't know how successful they will be.

I don't think middle earth themed LEGO is a stupid idea and I wouldn't be that surprised if it comes out. I have no doubt they could make it work but I am a bit doubtful of the economic sense, whether kids really would prefer it and whether it is good for the LEGO brand.

I am a bit biased, personally I prefer non-licensed themes. For a start they're notably cheaper but I also like that as much of the imagnination as possible is determined by you. I think non-licesed themes are more universely compatible with all other LEGO and for me that is what LEGO is all about. This problem is not just confined to the minifigures but that is a significant part of it. I think LEGO got an awful lot right with the Kingdoms line and I hope they continue to produce sets and themes along the same lines.

[SoupOrFishOil]

I don't think each genre needs a license. If you agree kids wouldn't distinguish middle earth LEGO from other fantasy themes then I think that really weakens your argument, LEGO already has all the molds and print designs to produce unlicensed wizards, elves, dwarves, orcs, dragons, monsters and so on. It's therefore liable to be MUCH more costly for LEGO to produce middle earth sets than it is for them to just bring out a new wave of fantasy compatible with Kingdoms. Furthermore these sets will still benefit from any increased demand for fantasy themed sets that the Hobbit films might create. If the license doesn't really add anything then it is such a waste of money to go for it.

Personally I think a large part of what LEGO aim for in a licsense is something that is going to pull kids into LEGO at an early age and that there'll hopefully want more LEGO after the license expires. Star Wars is an obvious exception to this but that license has probably returned old or brought in new older fans of LEGO in a similar way.

For example if your child is going to a birthday party of a kid who you know likes Harry Potter then getting them a Harry Potter LEGO set seems a good idea and it might be all it takes for that child to start collecting LEGO for the next 10 years. Similarly if your a little kid who loves say winne the poo or disney cars and you go into a toy shop then you're instantly going to recognise those sets, want to get them, go home and play with them and then the next time you go into a toy shop you may well just recognise any LEGO set as something you want to play with.

Personally I don't think Hobbit sets would achieve this, you can't really be sure until the films come out because I don't know whether they're aiming it at fans of the LOTR films or this time going for younger kids and you also don't know how successful they will be.

I don't think middle earth themed LEGO is a stupid idea and I wouldn't be that surprised if it comes out. I have no doubt they could make it work but I am a bit doubtful of the economic sense, whether kids really would prefer it and whether it is good for the LEGO brand.

I am a bit biased, personally I prefer non-licensed themes. For a start they're notably cheaper but I also like that as much of the imagnination as possible is determined by you. I think non-licesed themes are more universely compatible with all other LEGO and for me that is what LEGO is all about. This problem is not just confined to the minifigures but that is a significant part of it. I think LEGO got an awful lot right with the Kingdoms line and I hope they continue to produce sets and themes along the same lines.

Good observation! My first LEGO products were McDonald's giveaways, if that helps your point at all.

[fred67]

I agree with Weil. I don't know if they will do LOTR, but I've been saying all along that if they didn't, I would be quite happy with Fantasy II. The variety of dwarf parts we got in Fantasy Era, and with the new dwarf, can make you 13 different (even if only slightly) dwarves. The riding dragons were great winged steeds, we had orcs and trolls... just missing elves. Make a couple of pseudo LOTR sets (wizard's tower, white city, elf city) and I'd be happy...

I see a lot of benefits to it; given all the yellow figures we already have, they'd all work well together. It would likely be cheaper. They could expand the role of women (LOTR has a few great female characters, but they are few... maybe 3 that they'd make?)

I have to say, I'd be happy either way. I won't continue to buy Kingdoms, though. I started slowing down on SW sets... decided I only really liked the OT sets, and don't want duplicates, so don't need the new MF, don't need the new AT-AT (but I'm glad they re-release, as I missed a lot of earlier ones), but I digress... one of the reasons was because, as a fantasy fan, I became enamored with the fantasy sets. I didn't realize it at the time, but it was BECAUSE it was fantasy. So when they stopped and released the Kingdoms sets, I bought a few... but now am not really that into it.

On a side note, CallMePieOrDie said POTC and HP weren't getting any new sets... don't we already know there'll be a Black Pearl? And weren't we told HP was getting a big new exciting set by the end of the year?

[Haltiamieli]

On a side note, CallMePieOrDie said POTC and HP weren't getting any new sets... don't we already know there'll be a Black Pearl? And weren't we told HP was getting a big new exciting set by the end of the year?

The Black Pearl is coming already in 2011 and we've known of it more or less as long as of the other sets of the PotC theme, so it doesn't really count, as the question was about 2012 releases. But this is first I've heard of any "big new exciting set" in HP theme? I'm pretty certain there hasn't been any such buzz in Eurobricks, at least.

[bobb]

I'm new here, so don't crucify me just yet. I just wanted to express how deeply disappointed I am in the Lego company's decision to end its long run of great Harry Potter sets (including the fantastic Hogwarts Express) and replace the beloved series with the clearly more sexist Lord of the Rings. Not all Lego fans have penises, you know!

[The_Chosen_1]

A Lord of the Rings theme is just a wishful rumor at this point...

Edited September 14, 2011 by The_Chosen_1

[XimenaPaulina]

There's already an existing topic on the possible licensing of LOTR, so I'm going to merge this with that one.

[CorneliusMurdock]

I'm new here, so don't crucify me just yet. I just wanted to express how deeply disappointed I am in the Lego company's decision to end its long run of great Harry Potter sets (including the fantastic Hogwarts Express) and replace the beloved series with the clearly more sexist Lord of the Rings. Not all Lego fans have penises, you know!

First off, with the way Lego has been releasing Harry Potter it's pretty clear it would be ending soon even if nothing replaced it. They really only released sets to coincide with movies and even then not a full fledged wave with every one. If there aren't more movies, there probably won't be more sets. Lego getting another license won't change this. In fact, the only reason we probably got a second wave of sets at all this time was because of the video games. If Rowling at some point wants to write more books in the series or a spin off for movies to be based on, the HP line may return. Heck they might do more for the anniversaries of the movies years from now. You never know. A LOTR license wouldn't make a difference even if the rumors prove true.

Secondly, yes, LOTR has fewer female characters. For the time period in which it was written, that is not at all unusual. But it's not "clearly more sexist". It does have two very strong female characters which is very unusual for the time.

Galadriel rules an entire forest and is hinted to be one of the most powerful beings in Middle Earth. She's so strong she's one of only a handful of beings that could resist the power of the ring even when Frodo tries to give it to her. Her husband is a mere footnote and I can't even recall his name though I've read the books at least twelve times.

Eowyn is perhaps even stronger in that she rebels against her patriarchal society and goes to war even though her uncle forbids it. And she kicks some serious megablocks. Without her, the Witch King wouldn't have died and the entire war would have ended differently.

I think Tolkien took a great risk in making two very strong female characters. He was being counter-cultural by including them and could have alienated the publisher and his target audience. He did it anyway and it is decisions like that one that makes LOTR great. HP has more female characters but I think Galadriel and Eowyn could hold their own against any of them just like they could against any of the male characters from either work. Literary analysis FTW!

And I know many, many women who love LOTR. For example, the first date I had with my wife was to see the Two Towers and it was her choice of film.

[Erynion]

And what is about the adults? –They love beauty architecture designing. And now seriously: Who about you would not like a beauty Rivendell?

Right, because LEGO tends to put a lot of work and parts into making beautiful, detailed, COMPLETE architecture and structures in their (especially non-exclusive) licensed sets...

(Sorry, that was really sarcastic, just had to say it... I hope you don't take it in a bad way)

Why not in combination: Middle-earth & Kingdoms?

Because we would have pink people and yellow people together.

I almost definitely can't afford to buy the two of them together. Not with my budget over the next few years. And even if I had more money, I don't think I could justify spending that much on LEGO (while that's just me and my shelf decorations, a lot of parents would probably feel the same way).

I am a bit biased, personally I prefer non-licensed themes. For a start they're notably cheaper but I also like that as much of the imagnination as possible is determined by you. I think non-licesed themes are more universely compatible with all other LEGO and for me that is what LEGO is all about. This problem is not just confined to the minifigures but that is a significant part of it.

That took the words out of my mouth

[Weil]

This is something I knocked together in LDD to demonstrate what I think a LEGO LOTR licensed set of Minas Tirith might look like. If LEGO do make LOTR licesned sets then I think sets along these lines are MUCH more likely than a lot of the amazing stuff people have been dreaming about in this thread.

Oh no the evil Nazgul has attacked the great city of Minas Tirith! Will he capture poor Pippin? Will The guard shoot him out of the sky with the catapult? Will Gandalf the mighty white wizard defeat him?

Personally I wouldn't buy this set. I think a child would have fun with it but I think LEGO could just as easily make an unlicsened equivalent of it that would be better designed, just as if not more fun for the child, come at a lower price and be much more compatible with existing and previous LEGO castle/fantasy themes.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Weil

[Gryphon Ink]

Secondly, yes, LOTR has fewer female characters. For the time period in which it was written, that is not at all unusual. But it's not "clearly more sexist". It does have two very strong female characters which is very unusual for the time. Galadriel rules an entire forest and is hinted to be one of the most powerful beings in Middle Earth... Eowyn is perhaps even stronger in that she rebels against her patriarchal society and goes to war even though her uncle forbids it. And she kicks some serious megablocks. Without her, the Witch King wouldn't have died and the entire war would have ended differently.

I think Tolkien took a great risk in making two very strong female characters. He was being counter-cultural by including them and could have alienated the publisher and his target audience. He did it anyway and it is decisions like that one that makes LOTR great. HP has more female characters but I think Galadriel and Eowyn could hold their own against any of them just like they could against any of the male characters from either work. Literary analysis FTW!

Yep, all that. I've always seen Eowyn's slaying of the Witch King as a big raspberry thrown up in the faces of literary traditions that demanded male heroes. It's true that women take a huge back seat to the male protags in LOTR, but I believe Tolkien did what he could to show that women were just as much a part of things. And Galadriel IS one of the most powerful beings alive in Middle-Earth at the time of the war, which is why she has one of the Three Rings.

Her hubby is Celeborn, BTW.

And I know many, many women who love LOTR. For example, the first date I had with my wife was to see the Two Towers and it was her choice of film.

Yep, it's one of my wife's favorite film series, and I'm active in a knitting community that is almost entirely female and has hundreds of rabid LOTR fans. I'd say it's one of the biggest fandoms in the female half of the geek world. Which should be no surprise, considering how many of the world's most drooled-over male actors are in the films. Of course, it doesn't hurt that the books and movies are all great...

I agree with Weil. I don't know if they will do LOTR, but I've been saying all along that if they didn't, I would be quite happy with Fantasy II. The variety of dwarf parts we got in Fantasy Era, and with the new dwarf, can make you 13 different (even if only slightly) dwarves. The riding dragons were great winged steeds, we had orcs and trolls... just missing elves. Make a couple of pseudo LOTR sets (wizard's tower, white city, elf city) and I'd be happy...

I think overall I'd be happier with Fantasy II as well, for all the reasons you mention. Given that TLG's official LOTR sets definitely wouldn't be as good as what we'd all like to see, I'd rather have a bigger variety of generic fantasy parts available for master MOCers to do their magic with, so we can see what Minas Tirith and Moria REALLY should look like. LOTR is one of the major roots of modern generic fantasy, anyway.

Also, after seeing the Dino 2012 pics I have visions of orc cavalry storming a Dwarven fortress on velociraptors and triceratops. I'd rather build that than see an official Lego Balrog that is sure to disappoint us all.

[Niku]

Oh no the evil Nazgul has attacked the great city of Minas Tirith! Will he capture poor Pippin? Will The guard shoot him out of the sky with the catapult? Will Gandalf the mighty white wizard defeat him?

Too many questions to answer.

What you said it´s a possibility if LEGO decide to go on the easy way, but here on this thread have been presented some good ideas that are applicable to deliver a quality set with a balanced fair price.

For sure if this would be Minas Tirith I wouldnt buy it either.

Let´s hope if they decide to make a Licensed Theme to achieve the equilibrium for fans, pieces, appealing to children and fair price. If not, as you suggested continue the fantasy line without the license, as on Castle.

Those are my wishes.

Oh yes and world peace too.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Niku

[Elander]

My theory about the audience for Fantasy II and Tolkien-license:

(I talk about people who like the adventure/fantasy-theme.)

Fantasy II

-Young kids (6-12 years): Would like Fantasy II to 100%. These like cool minifigures and are happy and the parents may pay it.

-Elder kids/adults (12+ years): Some like Fantasy II (because this theme is nice and not too expensive), but for others is Fantasy II too childish. Together these would like Fantasy II to 50%.

Tolkien-license

-Young kids (6-12 years): Would like Tolkien to 100%. These like cool minifigures and are happy. But unfortunately is the license very expensive –do the parents to pay it? I have no idea about LEGOs sells for that audience for Harry Potter/Pirates of the Caribbean. ??

-Elder kids/adults (12+ years): Comparable to Star Wars. -Based on Middle-earth’s cult status and videogames. But that license is very expensive. (Do some people no buy Star Wars sets and to switch over to Space Police? For which audience to sell LEGO the most Star Wars sets?) –I to think that the elder kids/adults would like the Tolkien license to 90%.

I believe the demographic raises and the customers to advance in age!

Let’s keep (for a compare for Tolkien) by the Star Wars theme:

By which audience generated LEGO more money? –The young kids (6-12 years) or the elder kids/adults (12+ years)?

-The young kids are (in bulk) more, but their parents to buy no so many expensive sets.

-The elder kids/adults are fewer, but these to buy very expensive sets.

TLC revenue for sold sets is in summery for 50% younger kids (6-12 years old) and 50% elder kids/adults.

And which situation we would have if TLC marketed Fantasy II?

No videogame-industry, no cult –fewer elder costumers. And that is a problem. The production costs keep lesser and the sets get (in bulk) fewer quality. In that case is Fantasy II like Space Police, a B-movie.

->And a Tolkien license would be (like Star Wars) an A-Movie.

What I did write:

“TLC has to be creative and innovative BECAUSE his toy creative and innovative is!”

-LEGO developed CREATOR, now has the time come to use it. Let’s talk about Minas Tirith…

To be continued

Elander

[Elander]

Yeah, yeah, -that is the fate of the visionary. At first all laugh –then the following.

-The Siege of Minas Tirith/ Battle of the Pelennor Fields-

Hi folks,

this could be definitive the greatest battle in LEGOs history. Our task is now to develop a concept for that battle. Is it possible this battle economical to transform in LEGO style?

We know the battle of Hoth (Star Wars), if we add all developed Hoth sets –than we can to build our own Hoth battle. Similar to that procedure we have to do it for Minas Tirith/Pelennor.

Here in that topic I’ve tried to explain how LEGO economical to create abstract battles and locations like Isengard. The key was (and will be in future) skills based on CREATOR.

Ok, let’s get down to business. -At first we have to analyse and to divide up that city in different sets:

(Minas Tirith has in original 7x wall rings. For a good seller and playable Minas Tirith is 1x city wall ring enough.)

-The Citadel: Definitive is that our “main-set” (inclusive “main-characters”) for Minas Tirith. That big set is to declare as “highlight” (every wave has 1x highlight –that would be a “highlight-set”)

-Modular CREATOR set for 3x house-variations. –You can to connect every modular house-variation with the city wall.

Attention (chapter 6: Dynamic Bricking): If you to add 2x CREATOR houses –than you get enough good bricks for a nice great house with exploding function. –TLC has developed 1x CREATOR set, if you want the complete house series –than you have to buy 5x houses (in total 2x houses for exploding house, 3x variable houses).

-Modular CREATOR fortification; 1x modular CREATOR set -for a city wall, a tower and a gate. All variations are modular. The gate is to connect between the Citadel and the city wall.

Attention (chapter 6: Dynamic Bricking): If you to add 2x CREATOR fortification sets –than you to get enough good bricks for a long wall with some exploding functions. Also you can with 2x CREATOR fortification sets to build the great city gate.

It is your own choose how large the diameter for the city-wall ring is. Also it is your own decide how many towers your city need. With these creator sets you can build a very huge Minas Tirith, also a smaller Minas Tirith.

For the complete fortification for a UCS Minas Tirith you will need in total (estimated):

The wall ring in a line:

[wall]-[tower]-[2x wall/1x large wall]-[tower]-[city gate]-[tower]-[2x wall/1x large wall]-[tower]-[wall]

+ [gate] for Citadel

Total = 13x CREATOR fortification sets –and LEGO has for that case developed just 1x CREATOR set!

Again: It is your own choose how big that city has to be. You can also to buy just 2x CREATOR fortification sets for 1x wall part and 1x tower. And behind the wall you put 1x CREATOR house. All modular CREATOR sets are just great variable bricks. -Your imagination to create that city.

So, I believe with Minas Thirith we are finish. LEGO has developed 2x modular CREATOR sets (for LEGO therefore no risk) and we “can” create a huge city. For my case here is to buy 5x CREATOR houses and 13x CREATOR fortification sets and the “main-set” –the Citadel. In total 19x sets.

Ok, and now the battle:

-Siege “main-set” –that could be Grond the great battering ram. (chapter 8, effective design): If you wnt to catch more peoples for that LEGO set. -Than need that set more flair. What do you think about a brick light for lightning eyes and a fire-mouth. Some people could that style more interesting. My advice for a main-character (minifigure) could be the orc-general Gothmog.

-CREATOR siege set for 2x variations: In these set is place for a Nazgul with flying beast.

Variation A: Siege tower/Variation B: 2x different catapults.

And for the battle:

-CREATOR creature set (chapter 2) for 3x different brickbuilt war trolls.

-brickbuilt oliphount with tower, inclusive harad-minifigures!

Wow, this are in total 2x LEGO developed siege sets and 2x LEGO developed battle sets. -And here follow the battle-packs (chapter 3):

-Gondor/Rohan battle-pack, inclusive horses!

-“effective” orc battle-pack

-“effective” army of the death battle pack

In total has TLC developed 7x sets for the siege and the great battle. And I’m confident that a lot of people would to buy many of them. The money is rolling in!

So, your comments are welcome. That is just a simulate list and all sets are just examples for this developing concept. I’m absolute confident that CREATOR the right way and LEGOs future is. All things will be possible and you create with modular CREATOR “bricks” your own world. Your imagination decide how have to be your city.

TLC has no risk and we have fun! –And why should that concept no work?

[CMP]

LEGO's not going to release 7 different sets at the same time for one scene. That much is pretty obvious. This theme has a chance, but to think they're going to have a giant 7 set UCS for it is very unlikely.

[Weil]

Exactly. Very unlikely is an understatement. What you're suggesting Elander just doesn't make any business sense.

With regards to your first post I disagree with most of your analysis. I'm pretty sure the Star Wars merchandise/collectables market is considerably larger than the size of the LOTR merchandise/collectables market, I don't think the value of the licenses are as comparable as you make out. I'm not really able to comment on what the demographics look like but I'm not convinced of what you've stated (don't even get me started on the 100% figures).

Seven different sets for Minas Tirith? How many do you suggest in total for the theme? The costs of this would be unrealistic! They've got to pay people to design all those different sets and the production costs would be absolutely ridiculous. You can set up a production line to make a single set and once its running its very efficient but every time you change it efficiency drops dramatically. Just designing the box art and doing all the different printing for the packaging would drag costs up dramatically.

Then you've got the problem of sales of the sets, first of all with those production costs they would be REALLY expensive. That isn't the only problem though, they would offer far too much competition for each other, I think it would be really bad for impulse buy sales and most significantly of all many of the sets would not be able to stand up by themselves as an independent set that was fun for children (without all being big and even more expensive). Every lego set has to be able to do this, the modular city sets are combinable with as few or as many other different ones that you have however each one is a great set in its own right. If you buy a child a single modular set that needs other ones to be any fun then they're not going to play with it and therefore they're not going to want or get any more.

We come to another huge problem as soon as you try to imagine what the shelves of the shops selling these sets would look like. You expect them to display all those different sets? The space required would be stupid - no shop would give up that much retail space to a single theme of LEGO.

There are many more flaws with the business sense of this as you've outlined it but I think that is enough to conclusively make it obvious that it is unrealistic.

People calling for LOTR LEGO is fine, I wouldn't want it but I understand that some people would. You've got to be realistic about it though and if you wouldn't want it in a way that makes sense for TLC then there's no point seriously calling for it at all.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Weil

[CMP]

Yeah, Weil's mock-up is a much more likely set for Minas Tirith. Maybe with a gate or something, for playability, though. Hell, for the Golden Hall I'm expecting a $10 set with a throne, weapons rack, table, Theoden, Wormtongue, and Aragorn. While what you say would be awesome, it's just very unlikely.

[TheLegoDr]

I agree that it wouldn't be impossible, but improbable for that many sets to come out for one giant setting of LOTR. The only way any store could handle that is if Lego had scheduled release dates that would essentially remove the previous from the shelves to make room for the next series of sets. The problem of course is many people missing out on the previous sets before it gets "discontinued," which again, would cause dramatic financial shifts for Lego and the consumer. I do not see that happening personally. I do see LOTR sets like the one previously shown in LDD and letting your imagination fill in the gaps. That, of course, would not fly for most AFOLs, let alone children wanting the sets since there isn't a ton of playability and more than likely a higher price tag because of it.

I am probably different than most people, but I have only purchased the licensed sets when they were on some sort of sale. Never full price. To wait that long for LOTR to come on sale, that would be difficult.

I missed out on the first Fantasy era and I'm not heartbroken about it. But I think Lego could catch a few stragglers with a new release of Fantasy in the next few years. I don't see it happening while Kingdoms is going though.

[Elander]

Ok, I agree. You are right and I’ve to be more realistic…

Ok, I agree -7x several sets for “one” battle in “one” wave are too many. What is in that case to do? The positive of the “Battle Packs” is –these are all flexible. I mean you could put these sets in other waves for other themes.

-The Siege of Minas Tirith/ Battle of the Pelennor Fields-

And for the battle:

-CREATOR creature set (chapter 2) for 3x different brickbuilt war trolls.

-brickbuilt oliphount with tower, inclusive harad-minifigures!

Wow, this are in total 2x LEGO developed siege sets and 2x LEGO developed battle sets. -And here follow the battle-packs (chapter 3):

-Gondor/Rohan battle-pack, inclusive horses!

-“effective” orc battle-pack

-“effective” army of the death battle pack

-CREATOR creature set (chapter 2) for 3x different brickbuilt war trolls: That set suits for example to the “Black Gate”.

-“effective” orc battle-pack: That set suits also to the “Black Gate” or also (for example) for the last decisive battle against Sauron (2.age theme); ->last fight with King Earendil, Elf-king Gil-galad and Isildur.

-effective “army of the death” battle pack: That set could suits to “Dwimorberg (chapter 5, city of death)” if TLC to decide that they to develop 1x shining CREATOR house for that city.

-Gondor/Rohan battle-pack, inclusive horses: Ok, that set could be split. –The Rohan-riders suits to Helm’s Deep. Therefore could LEGO develop 1x other combination Battle-Pack including Lothlorien-elves. And (for example) 3x Gondor-soldiers could go into the modular CREATOR fortification set.

-brickbuilt oliphount with tower, inclusive harad-minifigures: Alternative area could be “the Battle for Ithilien” against Faramir and the rangers.

-The good thing is, it is possible the Battle-Packs to change into other different themes.

Now we have for the siege of Minas Tirith just 2x sets:

-CREATOR siege set for 2x variations: (Inclusive a Nazgul with flying beast.)

Variation A: Siege tower/Variation B: 2x different catapults.

-Grond the big battering ram.

And I agree that the costs for these sets would be amazing (like Harry Potter or Star Wars). The different new developed bricks and prints are just two examples. But I am also absolute sure that LEGO would find a great audience (young & old) who would to buy these sets.

You know, I love Middle-earth. I want just to show you what possibilities this place us can give. And CREATOR gives us really a chance to develop that world. Some people would really to buy 2x, 3x or more times “one” CREATOR set for an explicitly place (for example the Shire). And here are variable minifigures really welcome. –That print investment could be really profitable. Nobody wants 7x same hobbits. And it is after all a chance that a ready sale to happen and the shelves could be fast empty without to remove the sets back to LEGO.

-Ok I agree, if kids to see that it could work to build with multi-parts (variable CREATOR sets) whole locations. ->Than these would want more and more (snowball-system). What do you think if TLC to put lesser CREATOR sets in “1x wave”.

But at first (I want to be now realistic) is to test if that CREATOR-system really works:

Ok, what do you think if TLC does undertake a CREATOR “experiment”. -Maximal 2x CREATOR sets for the 1.st wave. The other sets are normal classic sets. After we will see if that work!?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

How could look a master-plan for the Tolkien-license:

-Late summer 2012: LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring

-Winter 2012/13: Hobbit 1.st movie

-Late summer 2013: LOTR: The two Towers

-Winter 2013/14: Hobbit 2.st movie

-Late summer 2014: LOTR: The Return of the King

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which Creator sets could be possible for LOTR “The Fellowship of the Ring”:

The Shire: 1x modular CREATOR hobbit-hole with some “flexible” hobbits (that set could also be in the second wave “hobbit-theme”)

Lothlorien: 1x CREATOR tree house for 3x nice tree house variations.

And which Battle-Packs could TLC develop for the 1.st wave:

-Moria: flexible goblins (short legs)

-the “Last Alliance” against Saurons forces: Gondor-soldiers/Noldor-elves ->positive transforming:

These Gondor-soldiers are compatible to the “Siege of Minas Tirith” and therefore are no more Gondor-soldiers necessary.

These Noldor-elves are compatible for the “Battle of Helm’s Deep” and therefore are no more Noldor-elves necessary.

-Saurons army: “flexible” orcs ->positive transforming:

These orcs are applicable for all other orc-battles (see Hobbit-theme/LOTR battles).

Also could LEGO to discard the Moria-goblin Battle-Pack and put Moria goblins only in a “Balins Tomb” battle set. This process to save the great many of Battle-Packs and creates place for other sets.

You see, I try to be realistic and try to keep all things short. Huge locations in just “1x” or “2x” CREATOR set(s) and variable “Battle-Packs” for different battles. (I give my best, and I hope you are now more cheerful about my ideas.)

-

[AndyC]

The big problem with trying to combine Creator-style 3 in 1 sets with a licensed theme is that you could potentially run into a lot of issues getting all three designs approved. Remember that every model not only has to pass Lego design guidelines but would also need to be signed off by the licensor. If they decide there is something they want changed about model 2 for example, then you run into the issue of either trying to solve it without adding pieces, adding more pieces and still trying to stay in budget or having to also change models 1 and 3 to compensate for the piece changes - risking those being de-approved and the whole process repeating.

Not to mention that I think your justification is flawed. Parents see the 3 in 1 label as something that will extend the lifetime of the one set they buy, they don't want to think of it as having to buy 3 identical products to get what their kid really wants. AFOLs buy multiples of sets all the time, but your average parent would much prefer to buy 3 entirely different sets so their kids can build new things - not the three things they can already build.

[Elander]

The big problem with trying to combine Creator-style 3 in 1 sets with a licensed theme is that you could potentially run into a lot of issues getting all three designs approved. Remember that every model not only has to pass Lego design guidelines but would also need to be signed off by the licensor. If they decide there is something they want changed about model 2 for example, then you run into the issue of either trying to solve it without adding pieces, adding more pieces and still trying to stay in budget or having to also change models 1 and 3 to compensate for the piece changes - risking those being de-approved and the whole process repeating.

Good point!

I understand, if I want to create a CREATOR set related to important “main-buildings” (for example a CREATOR set concerning the two towers Isengard and Barad-dur) –than I could get license-problems.

But if I want to create a CREATOR set about just outbuildings like walls or normal towers –than could it happen. In that case are to clarify the license-compatibility conditions.

-And of course, if that building technical in different variations possible is.

Not to mention that I think your justification is flawed. Parents see the 3 in 1 label as something that will extend the lifetime of the one set they buy, they don't want to think of it as having to buy 3 identical products to get what their kid really wants. AFOLs buy multiples of sets all the time, but your average parent would much prefer to buy 3 entirely different sets so their kids can build new things - not the three things they can already build.

Uff,

For my ideas a baaad point!

I think, it’s worth trying! –May be work it!?

I believe our conversation will better and better!

Edited September 16, 2011 by Elander