Classic-Castle.com

Wishful thinking, buddy. ANyway, besides price raises and the loss of creativity, no one seems to have mentioned Fleshies, we'd have vampire Gondorians, battling corn-skinned Black Falcons! Furthermore, what if it didn't take away creativity? Imagine several years of lisence with Lego just producing smaller sized sets, none of them decent to the Movies or Books.

~Ziggy

Kev wrote:Waaay back when Jake Mckee was doing his Q&A's or "community relation" stuff with fans, he specifically said that LOTR was too mature for Lego, that it was targeted with themes and violence at a teenage (at least) level whereas lego was firmly targeted towards 6-8 year olds.

So didn't happen, not gonna happen. However, if/when someone gets around to the Hobbit, depending on how they handle the movie, I could see lego picking it up as a long shot.

This is precisely correct. Though maedros' comment (about SW being therefore equated as less violent makes their decision smack of hypocrisy) is cogent. But (I believe it was) Jake pointed out that if the violence in the movies hadn't been so ramped up from where it was in the books, it might have flown for TLC. SW violence is stylized, romantic violence, though the last movie was darker.

The upside for me would have been for specialized pieces. Imagine if they had made armor and weapons to match the movie! Just think of all the special parts as well, yummy. But the downside would have been the sets. Once TLC made a set, then that would have "it." Imagine a 3 level Orthanc? Too small. At NWBC I made a Helm's Deep (which will make it to BF PDX) and plenty of people said "that's not how it looks." My version was based off the description in the books, not the movie version which was unecessarily different that the book version. No version is "wrong," simply your take. But if TLC had made a set it might have hurt many kids' imaginations. There are very few HP sets that expanded on the official set version. The analogy is somewhat flawed I understand, owing to the breadth of time Tolkien's works have been available. Just my 2 cents.

The Blue Knight wrote: But (I believe it was) Jake pointed out that if the violence in the movies hadn't been so ramped up from where it was in the books, it might have flown for TLC.

Actually, it seemed to me that the violence in the movies was ramped up at all. In fact, I would say they ramped it down. They left out lots of small fights, and they left the whole ravaging of the shire to give it a happy ending.

Kelderic

kelderic wrote:

The Blue Knight wrote: But (I believe it was) Jake pointed out that if the violence in the movies hadn't been so ramped up from where it was in the books, it might have flown for TLC.

Actually, it seemed to me that the violence in the movies was ramped up at all. In fact, I would say they ramped it down. They left out lots of small fights, and they left the whole ravaging of the shire to give it a happy ending.

Kelderic

In the book Tolkien would write something like "they did battle," and Peter Jackson would spend 20 minutes on it. A specific example was the end of the first movie. There was no battle in the narrative at the breaking of the Fellowship. Boromir's deeds are told in retrospect. So the entire head-chopping battle is added. I was beng tactful when I said the violence was ramped up, it was turbo charged through the roof. The scouring of the Shire was dropped for artistic reasons, Jackson goes on record descriding how he would have loved to film that. I can understand though if you haven't read the book that you might think that.

The Blue Knight wrote:I can understand though if you haven't read the book that you might think that.

Ouch! A bit harsh there, but understandable.

The Blue Knight wrote:In the book Tolkien would write something like "they did battle," and Peter Jackson would spend 20 minutes on it.

That's the whole point of a movie. He writes it, and then they flim it. You can't really film a battle, without violence.

The Blue Knight wrote:So the entire head-chopping battle is added.

Yes, Jackson needed a "hero" scene for Aragorn. He added it for "artistic reasons", to use you own words.


Anyway, while Jackson may have added violence, he also took alot out. For instance, the battle between the Fellowship and the evil wolves in the first book is not in the movie at all. Plenty of violence there. Also, the battle scenes in which Aragorn takes the Black Fleet and frees all of the prisoners is taken out. Things like this are prevalent throughout the movies.

Kelderic

& the burrow wights! Don't forget them - that would have been cool ...

Sounds like someone should remake the movies...and just do the bits Jackson left out!

Please don't get this topic locked! Try to stray back onto the path of LOTR LEGO, and not make this a Peter Jackson support group/ headhunting party.

Hey Kelderic-I didn't intend that to be harsh, its important to me that you understand that I wasn't "bashing" you, and that I enjoy the banter. I want you to know that its all in good fun, and I respect your opinion. We could go back and forth all day (and if you are coming to BrickFest maybe we can!) about the movies versus books and why the director did, or did not do something. Thats a lot of fun, but I digressed in that post.

My point was that I believe LEGO thought the movies were violent enough for them that they didn't want to take the heat, and that is the entire basis for their decision not to license it. A great argument could be made that other licenses are violent (Batman comes to mind) which could lead one to believe there is a different reason. That argument is not without merit. In the end we will most likely never know there actual reasoning. It would have been a 2 edged sword for me. As I said, I would have loved the specialized pieces and parts, but I think that the "official" version of some sets would lead to idiotic critisicsm of MOCs of those sets. I used the example of the family at NWBC that told me that my Helm's Deep was "wrong."

In the end I would have enthusiastically embraced them all the same.

Yes, I understand that, Blue Knight. That's why I put the " " in. Maybe the "harsh" was a bit too strong of a word, though. I too enjoy light arguments about Tolken. What better subject is there to argue about?

Anyway, I agree with you about the hipocracy of the no LOTR because of violence when the have Batman and Starwars. But, that's TLG for you.

Kelderic

This is an interesting discussion.

First of all, I think a release of LOTR-sets won't happen. The right time, commercially, would have been in the same period as the movies.

Second, I would not truly desire such sets. There are enough common bricks available to build just about anything in Middle Earth.

The only big exception is...

Orcs! A minifig pack with a couple of orcs would be cool! I have seen several good attempts at creating an orc army, but none really convinced me.

regards,
Astuanaks

Spongey Wrote:

Please don't get this topic locked! Try to stray back onto the path of LOTR LEGO, and not make this a Peter Jackson support group/ headhunting party.

Well Spongey, I will attempt to discuss what I think you initially wanted for this thread, that is, a discusion of your ideas as potential sets. All of these ideas seem good. Unfortunately, it's been a number of years since I've read the books, so I can't suggest any more ideas. I would say that in the unlikely chance Lego did ever take up this line, I'm not sure if they would be willing to go for a 2000 piece Moria (of course, they've done substantially larger sets for SW, so I could be wrong).

I'm also curious as to what you envision some of these sets including. Specifically, what would come in the Lothlorian Set?. If I were designing the set I would make it much bigger because I think the elves are one of the coolest things about LotR. I would envision a number of brick built treas of various sizes, perhaps with a central tree with branches supporting an Elven bungalow. For minifigs, the set would contain a couple of elves (Queen Galadriel is a must) and one or two of the members of the fellowship.

Chuck06 wrote:Spongey Wrote:

Please don't get this topic locked! Try to stray back onto the path of LOTR LEGO, and not make this a Peter Jackson support group/ headhunting party.

Well Spongey, I will attempt to discuss what I think you initially wanted for this thread, that is, a discusion of your ideas as potential sets. All of these ideas seem good. Unfortunately, it's been a number of years since I've read the books, so I can't suggest any more ideas. I would say that in the unlikely chance Lego did ever take up this line, I'm not sure if they would be willing to go for a 2000 piece Moria (of course, they've done substantially larger sets for SW, so I could be wrong).

I'm also curious as to what you envision some of these sets including. Specifically, what would come in the Lothlorian Set?. If I were designing the set I would make it much bigger because I think the elves are one of the coolest things about LotR. I would envision a number of brick built treas of various sizes, perhaps with a central tree with branches supporting an Elven bungalow. For minifigs, the set would contain a couple of elves (Queen Galadriel is a must) and one or two of the members of the fellowship.

Thanks for giving me your two cents.
For the Moria set, I based the piece count on the average "huge" Star Wars set.
As for Lothlorien, I was thinking of making it kind of a forest builder set. A couple of trees, with Galadriel and Celeborn, and maybe an elven knight. Therefore, someone who wanted to depict a full scale Lothlorien could purchase multiples of the sets, without making it too big of an economic sacrifice.
Thanks again for your opinion.

Osgiliath all the way man. I have always wanted that.
Lothlorian seems like a good set, aswell as Moria. I think they should try to get those.