LEGO Hobbit 2014

[Hypernova888]

I think it's going to be entirely dependent on how well Tower of Orthanc has been selling. It was selling out at Shop@Home pretty consistently around the new year and resellers seem to think it will have a high aftermarket value, but without actual numbers we can't know if it's a huge seller or just underproduced... I think it has a better than 50/50 shot depending on how the license works. A proper Minas Tirith set could fulfill a lot of LOTR-fans wishlist items...

50/50 is a decent approximation...I hope it's true.

[SMC]

Yep 50% it wont get made 50% it will not get made.

[Faefrost]

Like I said, even if it's an old photo, odd how it should pop up in that particular video NOW. Maybe they visited the idea already and thought it wouldn't work, but now with the Ideas support it might be enough to get it out either as a D2C, final UCS or as an Ideas set.

Because they were just using some old stock photos of the design and prototype room?

And here's the kicker. Like I said in the LotR thread. If this photo is from 2013, and they explored and prototyped that sort of Minas Tirith set back then, then they have prior exploration of the design under the license. Prior work locked to the IP contract. This actually decreases the chance of the Ideas set getting made, not increases it. License contracts are funny and complex things. The Ideas project would find itself in a license conflict with an unreleased official design. And in such conflicts the unreleased design made specifically under the licenses and vendors auspices wins out.

To further add to the doom and gloom. Seeing that pre existing internal design means TLG looked at a near identical set/setting and opted not to make it at that time, for whatever reasons of business case. It is unlikely that those reasons have changed and just as likely that they will just forward that analysis over to the Ideas team.

So in short don't get your hopes up.

[Bycougars]

Because they were just using some old stock photos of the design and prototype room?

And here's the kicker. Like I said in the LotR thread. If this photo is from 2013, and they explored and prototyped that sort of Minas Tirith set back then, then they have prior exploration of the design under the license. Prior work locked to the IP contract. This actually decreases the chance of the Ideas set getting made, not increases it. License contracts are funny and complex things. The Ideas project would find itself in a license conflict with an unreleased official design. And in such conflicts the unreleased design made specifically under the licenses and vendors auspices wins out.

To further add to the doom and gloom. Seeing that pre existing internal design means TLG looked at a near identical set/setting and opted not to make it at that time, for whatever reasons of business case. It is unlikely that those reasons have changed and just as likely that they will just forward that analysis over to the Ideas team.

So in short don't get your hopes up.

Yeah, I don't think any hopes should be to high. We can still hope though. I do have to agree that because of license issues it may make it more difficult, but I don't think the chances of this set are impossible. Hopefully Lego will make this set, if not I will have to make a custom like I have done with other sets.

[Bobbtom]

Yeah, I don't think any hopes should be to high. We can still hope though. I do have to agree that because of license issues it may make it more difficult, but I don't think the chances of this set are impossible. Hopefully Lego will make this set, if not I will have to make a custom like I have done with other sets.

Just don't approve the set and release another wave under the LOTR license. Just like the Helicarrier and Elsa's palace. The Ideas brand is not a real obstacle to more LOTR sets. How to make these sets appeal to children is the problem. (Hint: Stop making all the sets character focused. Don't charge $80-$100 for tiny sets).

[Hypernova888]

As a kid, I know I'd be getting LotR sets for the figures. And the sets only get a bit dodgy in size and price between the $30-$60 range. Past that, they're sorted out. TLM is an exception, but so is Smaug himself.

[Bobbtom]

As a kid, I know I'd be getting LotR sets for the figures. And the sets only get a bit dodgy in size and price between the $30-$60 range. Past that, they're sorted out. TLM is an exception, but so is Smaug himself.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if you're trying to say that more people want character focused sets rather than soldiers that appeal to castle buyers; I've already addressed it in this thread. It is false.

So are the price ranges and I've already addressed this as well. Many,LOTR/Hobbit sets are overpriced in comparison to other sets on the shelves.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if you're trying to say that more people want character focused sets rather than soldiers that appeal to castle buyers; I've already addressed it in the future LOTR sets thread. It is false.

So are the price ranges and I've already addressed this as well. Many,LOTR/Hobbit sets are overpriced in comparison to other sets on the shelves.

[MAB]

It is not false that more people want named characters.

If you could have a series in which you get a generic Rohan, or Theoden, which would you get? Boromir or a generic Gondor?

A number of people want the named characters, and don't care too much for armies. You can deny it, but it is true.

Although a greater number would prefer both.

Edited February 8, 2015 by MAB

[Bobbtom]

It is not false that more people want named characters.

If you could have a series in which you get a generic Rohan, or Theoden, which would you get? Boromir or a generic Gondor?

A number of people want the named characters, and don't care too much for armies. You can deny it, but it is true.

Although a greater number would prefer both.

I can repeat my argument all day. I don't mind if people here are too lazy to flip back two pages or go to the other thread. If you want more indept analyis go to the future LOTR thread and find my posts.

Obviously people want named characters, but for all the est to have the same repeating character? No one want 500 gandalfs or 500 gimilis, which is why once they get a LOTR, set there's no incentive to buy more. You already have something from one set, why would you want another? This combined with the fact that the price for many LOTR/Hobbit sets were terrible compared to similar sets is why sales were so bad. The Goblin king Battle sat on shelves for ages with no one buying them at full price. That is a character focused set.

What you're saying is providing evidence why the line succeeded, which it didn't. If the line succeeded, then its clear that most buyers want character focused sets. In reality, it was clearly the opposite. The sets weren't as popular as lego wanted them to be. If you claim that not many people watched or liked the movies, that is only part of the truth. Lego has plenty of sets that are not based off of a movie that many consumers buy anyway. What lego failed to do was make the line appeal to castle buyers and people in general that did not watch the movie. This is entirely possible with the Middle Earth theme as it basically is fantasy medieval.. Instead, we got ugly sets that those that didn't watch the movie passed over and also are overpriced which garnered terrible sales.

[Faefrost]

I can repeat my argument all day. I don't mind if people here are too lazy to flip back two pages or go to the other thread. If you want more indept analyis go to the future LOTR thread and find my posts.

Obviously people want named characters, but for all the est to have the same repeating character? No one want 500 gandalfs or 500 gimilis, which is why once they get a LOTR, set there's no incentive to buy more. You already have something from one set, why would you want another? This combined with the fact that the price for many LOTR/Hobbit sets were terrible compared to similar sets is why sales were so bad. The Goblin king Battle sat on shelves for ages with no one buying them at full price. That is a character focused set.

What you're saying is providing evidence why the line succeeded, which it didn't. If the line succeeded, then its clear that most buyers want character focused sets. In reality, it was clearly the opposite. The sets weren't as popular as lego wanted them to be. If you claim that not many people watched or liked the movies, that is only part of the truth. Lego has plenty of sets that are not based off of a movie that many consumers buy anyway. What lego failed to do was make the line appeal to castle buyers and people in general that did not watch the movie. This is entirely possible with the Middle Earth theme as it basically is fantasy medieval.. Instead, we got ugly sets that those that didn't watch the movie passed over and also are overpriced which garnered terrible sales.

Lego has said in interviews and lectures that while Army Builders will buy an impressive amount for a single consumer they are at best unpredictable and hard to plan and design for. TLG views them as more of a happy bonus when a set hits a synergistic point with the army guys, but they don't really design sets with them in mind. There really are only a few thousand heavy Army Builders out there. And given their oft fickle nature largely caused by concentrating multiple purchases down onto fewer consumers, they are not really a core target. Lego sees much more predictable returns from the much much broader range of minifig and character collectors. Hence that is where their design focus goes. Further there are strong indications that the WB license put some strong restrictions on what sorts of Army Builder or Battlepack sets Lego could do. (I still speculate that was to maintain a clear division with Games Workshops Army Building Miniatures Games license.)

[Bobbtom]

Lego has said in interviews and lectures that while Army Builders will buy an impressive amount for a single consumer they are at best unpredictable and hard to plan and design for. TLG views them as more of a happy bonus when a set hits a synergistic point with the army guys, but they don't really design sets with them in mind. There really are only a few thousand heavy Army Builders out there. And given their oft fickle nature largely caused by concentrating multiple purchases down onto fewer consumers, they are not really a core target. Lego sees much more predictable returns from the much much broader range of minifig and character collectors. Hence that is where their design focus goes. Further there are strong indications that the WB license put some strong restrictions on what sorts of Army Builder or Battlepack sets Lego could do. (I still speculate that was to maintain a clear division with Games Workshops Army Building Miniatures Games license.)

The entire castle line consist of sets with "army builder" material. There are generic soldiers in nearly every set and is a staple of what lego releases every few years. Lego's research in the Middle Earline line is wrong. That is why the sets performed badly. You have the forest ambush with much more play value and 4 soldiers compared to riddles for the ring with 2 minifigs and a wall. Middle Earth is not like DC or Marvel where the only figures you need are the main characters and the villians. This is a battle focused line that would have succeeded if it appealed to castle buyers by including soldiers and not 500 gandalfs. Restrictions are nothing. All lego has to do and has been doing is including a wall or a vehicle.

[Artanis I]

Good points from both of you.

Middle Earth sets were definitely restricted by the source material, there were just too many main characters. If there were only 5 dwarves instead of 13, that would've opened up a few minifig slots for generic soldiers. A fellowship of 9 also put restrictions on slots for generic or secondary minifigs in LOTR. We were doomed to disappointment before we started.

[Bobbtom]

Good points from both of you.

Middle Earth sets were definitely restricted by the source material, there were just too many main characters. If there were only 5 dwarves instead of 13, that would've opened up a few minifig slots for generic soldiers. A fellowship of 9 also put restrictions on slots for generic or secondary minifigs in LOTR. We were doomed to disappointment before we started.

It's entirely possible to have all the main characters and generic characters at the same time. What lego did was spread main characters and only main characters, out in every set so that collectors would be inclined to get all of them. This didn't work. We got repeats in a whole bunch of sets that were at often times overpriced in comparison to other sets with the same price.

This also doesn't stop them from putting more minifigs such as soldiers, in sets that blantly should have had more.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Bobbtom

[MAB]

It's entirely possible to have all the main characters and generic characters at the same time. What lego did was spread main characters and only main characters, out in every set so that collectors would be inclined to get all of them. This didn't work. We got repeats in a whole bunch of sets that were at often times overpriced in comparison to other sets with the same price.

This also doesn't stop them from putting more minifigs such as soldiers, in sets that blantly should have had more.

That may work for you, and anyone that purchases the entire series. However, that is not lego's only market. Many people do not get the entire series of sets. If someone buys, for example the LOTR pirate ship, they need Legolas, Aragorn and Gimli to be there. Without them, the set doesn't make sense. Gandalf needs to be in Unexpected Gathering, Gandalf Arrives, etc.

[Ardelon]

I can repeat my argument all day. I don't mind if people here are too lazy to flip back two pages or go to the other thread. If you want more indept analyis go to the future LOTR thread and find my posts.

Obviously people want named characters, but for all the est to have the same repeating character? No one want 500 gandalfs or 500 gimilis, which is why once they get a LOTR, set there's no incentive to buy more. You already have something from one set, why would you want another? This combined with the fact that the price for many LOTR/Hobbit sets were terrible compared to similar sets is why sales were so bad. The Goblin king Battle sat on shelves for ages with no one buying them at full price. That is a character focused set.

What you're saying is providing evidence why the line succeeded, which it didn't. If the line succeeded, then its clear that most buyers want character focused sets. In reality, it was clearly the opposite. The sets weren't as popular as lego wanted them to be. If you claim that not many people watched or liked the movies, that is only part of the truth. Lego has plenty of sets that are not based off of a movie that many consumers buy anyway. What lego failed to do was make the line appeal to castle buyers and people in general that did not watch the movie. This is entirely possible with the Middle Earth theme as it basically is fantasy medieval.. Instead, we got ugly sets that those that didn't watch the movie passed over and also are overpriced which garnered terrible sales.

Youre assuming a large chunk of customers would buy repeats of army builder case, which is unlikely. The majority of LEGO is bought for kids by their older relatives, or by kids themselves with their pocket money. Why would parents buy multiples of one set for their kids? Maybe you come from a wealthy crowd, but for me LEGO sets were few a far between, one-off presents for birthdays and christmas, and maybe a tiny set for a treat once in a while. If I had whined for a repeat of the same set for army building, my parents would have called me out on being a spoilt brat, and they would hae been right. And I bet precious few kids have the money to sustain the profitability of army building sets for TLG. So who would these sets sell to? In the general population, there is a very small amount of AFOLs, among whom there is an uncertain amount of LotR/Castle/Fantasy fans, among whome there is a small amount of dedicated army builders. Not much of a market.

As for why should collectors buy different sets from the lines even with multiple Gandalfs (Gandalves? ) or Gimlis, well, because another Gandalf or Gimli is a small price to pay for the rest of the unique parts of a set. I seriously doubt that someone who bought the Moria set would have passed over the Council of Elrond or the Pirate/Corsair Ship, is they wanted the other figs or elements, just because these sets had another Gimli.

[Hypernova888]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if you're trying to say that more people want character focused sets rather than soldiers that appeal to castle buyers; I've already addressed it in this thread. It is false.

So are the price ranges and I've already addressed this as well. Many,LOTR/Hobbit sets are overpriced in comparison to other sets on the shelves.

I'm certain that more people would want the

characters: Kids. That's what I meant: as a kid, I wouldn't have been able to get all the LotR sets I have now. I'd have some, and I'd be getting them slowly. Kids would be buying for the characters. LEGO targets kids, (of course) and so what does LEGO do?

They produce sets that focus on main characters. I mean, the films (and the books, of course) are about these characters. They're what it's really about, not the battles, not the armies, but five hobbits on their own journeys.

And even though I own all but five of the main LotR+Hobbit sets, I'm cool with getting mains. Because that's what I think the theme should be about.

[Bobbtom]

Just go to the Future LOTR thread and find my old posts a few pages back. I'd have to repeat everything that I said if you didn't.

Quick Points @

@Ardelon

The point isn't that the same character stops people from buying them completely. The point is that there are NO solders for the good team at all except for the one rohan soldier. They spread out all the main characters in sets putting unique ones in some and repeated some in others at some points skimming on minifigs in places where they could have added soldiers. Combined with overpriced sets that didn't appeal to many buyers got us the poor sales.

Hypernova, your point ties in with Ardelon. You're in denial. If what you were saying is true, the line would have succeeded. It did not. What you're saying is validating the line if it succeeded. This isn't some DC/Marvel line where only the main characters are wanted. The main focus of the movie is not the characters and you know it. No one watches it for the council of elrond scene and then stop watching the movie. It's about the BATTLES. with heroes and SOLDIERS. Which lego FAILED to allow fans of the movie to recreate in many aspects.

In doing so they failed to appeal to castle builders with sets like the Goblin king battle.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Bobbtom

[Darth Punk]

Just go to the Future LOTR thread and find my old posts a few pages back. I'd have to repeat everything that I said if you didn't.

Quick Points @

@Ardelon

The point isn't that the same character stops people from buying them completely. The point is that there are NO solders for the good team at all except for the one rohan soldier. They spread out all the main characters in sets putting unique ones in some and repeated some in others at some points skimming on minifigs in places where they could have added soldiers. Combined with overpriced sets that didn't appeal to many buyers got us the poor sales.

Hypernova, your point ties in with Ardelon. You're in denial. If what you were saying is true, the line would have succeeded. It did not. What you're saying is validating the line if it succeeded. This isn't some DC/Marvel line where only the main characters are wanted. The main focus of the movie is not the characters and you know it. No one watches it for the council of elrond scene and then stop watching the movie. It's about the BATTLES. with heroes and SOLDIERS. Which lego FAILED to allow fans of the movie to recreate in many aspects.

In doing so they failed to appeal to castle builders with sets like the Goblin king battle.

That makes no sense at all. Do you stop watching when the battle is over? I'm not sure why anyone would be even interested in LoTR/the hobbit if they find characters to be irrelevant. Let alone pretty much every movie made.

Millions of people obvious are rabid fans of a movie because a bunch of random solders fly around in x-wing fighters trying to blow up some random giant black ball. Why we don't know because the story is complete unimportant. And who cares about some short guy carrying around some jewelry. Let's just skip to the part where a bunch of random creatures try randomly killing a bunch of other random people. Sounds like great fun. Afterward we can talk about all of those random people,who don't really matter.

I'm not sure why they even used real actors in LoTR, they could have just used stunt people who would probably be better fighters anyways.

[Dr.Cogg]

I think the biggest problem with the line are:

#1 Not a very good, main character to soldier ratio, because on the good guys side it was an army of main characters and on the bad guys side it was a bunch of the same minions.

#2 Set choices, why TLG chose the pirate ship and Counsel of Elrond , over the Balrog and Minas Tirith, we will never know.

[Bobbtom]

I think the biggest problem with the line are:

#1 Not a very good, main character to soldier ratio, because on the good guys side it was an army of main characters and on the bad guys side it was a bunch of the same minions.

#2 Set choices, why TLG chose the pirate ship and Counsel of Elrond , over the Balrog and Minas Tirith, we will never know.

Agreed. Here is someone that accepts what really happened.

That makes no sense at all. Do you stop watching when the battle is over? I'm not sure why anyone would be even interested in LoTR/the hobbit if they find characters to be irrelevant. Let alone pretty much every movie made.

Millions of people obvious are rabid fans of a movie because a bunch of random solders fly around in x-wing fighters trying to blow up some random giant black ball. Why we don't know because the story is complete unimportant. And who cares about some short guy carrying around some jewelry. Let's just skip to the part where a bunch of random creatures try randomly killing a bunch of other random people. Sounds like great fun. Afterward we can talk about all of those random people,who don't really matter.

I'm not sure why they even used real actors in LoTR, they could have just used stunt people who would probably be better fighters anyways.

Have fun with your star wars if they made no stormtroopers.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Bobbtom

[MAB]

Just go to the Future LOTR thread and find my old posts a few pages back. I'd have to repeat everything that I said if you didn't.

Quick Points @

@Ardelon

The point isn't that the same character stops people from buying them completely. The point is that there are NO solders for the good team at all except for the one rohan soldier. They spread out all the main characters in sets putting unique ones in some and repeated some in others at some points skimming on minifigs in places where they could have added soldiers. Combined with overpriced sets that didn't appeal to many buyers got us the poor sales.

Hypernova, your point ties in with Ardelon. You're in denial. If what you were saying is true, the line would have succeeded. It did not. What you're saying is validating the line if it succeeded. This isn't some DC/Marvel line where only the main characters are wanted. The main focus of the movie is not the characters and you know it. No one watches it for the council of elrond scene and then stop watching the movie. It's about the BATTLES. with heroes and SOLDIERS. Which lego FAILED to allow fans of the movie to recreate in many aspects.

In doing so they failed to appeal to castle builders with sets like the Goblin king battle.

So the first two Hobbit films don't exist? They aren't about battles, for the most part they are character development. Or does everyone else just skip them and go for the battle movie?

I think the biggest problem with the line are:

#1 Not a very good, main character to soldier ratio, because on the good guys side it was an army of main characters and on the bad guys side it was a bunch of the same minions.

#2 Set choices, why TLG chose the pirate ship and Counsel of Elrond , over the Balrog and Minas Tirith, we will never know.

So did you want the Balrog to be 250 pieces, or Minas Tirith to be that size? As if you want rid of the Council set (a key scene as it is the formation of the Fellowship) you need to replace it with something of similar size.

[Bobbtom]

So the first two Hobbit films don't exist? They aren't about battles, for the most part they are character development. Or does everyone else just skip them and go for the battle movie?

So did you want the Balrog to be 250 pieces, or Minas Tirith to be that size? As if you want rid of the Council set (a key scene as it is the formation of the Fellowship) you need to replace it with something of similar size.

Rewatch the movie. I am not going to argue with someone whose facts are wrong. Just because a scene is important in a movie doesn't mean it translates well into a Lego set.

[MAB]

I agree. Battle scenes do not translate well into Lego scenes. They require too many figures and have little play value, when compared to having multiple other sets.

Rewatch the movie. I am not going to argue with someone whose facts are wrong. Just because a scene is important in a movie doesn't mean it translates well into a Lego set.

What facts are wrong?

[bachamn]

Just go to the Future LOTR thread and find my old posts a few pages back. I'd have to repeat everything that I said if you didn't.

Lazy argument is lazy. I've read your points and still disagree with you. Tolkien glorifies the hell out of the main characters in all of his writings, and PJ accentuates this heavily in the films. Yes there are battles, but there is also so many levels of character development and heroic themes that you have to be delusional to think that the main characters aren't the main focus.

Suggesting that others are "in denial" because they're pointing out the massive holes in your argument comes across as desperation.

I'm confident that the line has ended, and that it was poorly executed in some respects, but I still disagree with most of the points you're (trying) to make.

[Bobbtom]

Lazy argument is lazy. I've read your points and still disagree with you. Tolkien glorifies the hell out of the main characters in all of his writings, and PJ accentuates this heavily in the films. Yes there are battles, but there is also so many levels of character development and heroic themes that you have to be delusional to think that the main characters aren't the main focus.

Suggesting that others are "in denial" because they're pointing out the massive holes in your argument comes across as desperation.

I'm confident that the line has ended, and that it was poorly executed in some respects, but I still disagree with most of the points you're (trying) to make.

I never said any of what you said about Tolkein and his characters. The book is different from the movie and what consumers versus readers of the books want is completely different. Calling my argument lazy? Your argument is putting words in my mouth.

The sets are based on the movies and its obvious what buyers want to buy and recreate from the movie. I'm taking what little evidence we have and making logical conclusions that make sense while others here maintain that the characters were so good and everyone only wants the sets for characters yet we have terrible sales for Middle Earth. This makes no sense and you know it.

I agree. Battle scenes do not translate well into Lego scenes. They require too many figures and have little play value, when compared to having multiple other sets.

What facts are wrong?

You've just invalidated the entire star wars and Castle lines.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Bobbtom