Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Lord of the Rings Toys

Lego Releases 'Insanely Detailed' Lord of the Rings Set for $500 (cnet.com) 81

Posted by EditorDavid from the ruling-them-all dept.
In J.R.R. Tolkein's The Two Towers, it's in Elrond's home city of Rivendell that Frodo chooses to destroy the ring of power.

And now Lego has created "a truly grand plastic-brick re-creation," reports CNET — costing $500 (£430, AU$800): The stronghold of the elves is a magical place, a sensation Lego managed to encapsulate in 6,167 pieces of plastic stretching 29.5 inches (75 centimeters) wide. "We know many of our fans have been anticipating a set like this for a long time — but a great Lego The Lord of the Rings set is never late, it arrives precisely when it means to!" said Lego design master Mike Psaiki in a statement Tuesday.

The colorful set is based on the design from the Peter Jackson movies. Lego's vision of Rivendell includes Frodo's bedroom, Elrond's study and the Council Ring where you can assemble the Fellowship. The rest of the set features an elven tower and a gazebo, river and bridge.... The set comes with a large cast of 15 minifigure characters, including Gandalf, Frodo, Samwise, Merry, Pippin, Legolas, Gimli and, of course, Elrond.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lego Releases 'Insanely Detailed' Lord of the Rings Set for $500 More

Lego Releases 'Insanely Detailed' Lord of the Rings Set for $500

Comments Filter:

  • Lego has lost its simple modularity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by John Allsup ( 987 ) <slashdot@cha l i s q ue.net> on Sunday February 12, 2023 @04:16AM (#63286435) Homepage Journal

    I loved Lego as a kid. I love how the bricks were all rectangular and modular, or perhaps with specific roles like axles and wheels. Now they're making things like trees that can only be a tree, and so on. The beauty of the original (circa 80s) Lego is that it relied on your imagination more.

    • Ingenuity too (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Sunday February 12, 2023 @04:48AM (#63286463) Journal
      Not just your imagination but also your ingenuity to get something vaguely similar to what you wanted with a fixed set of bricks. The pictures of this new model do not look like lego at all. It seems to be all custom pieces and hardly anything is recognizable as a standard lego brick.

      Minecraft reminds me more of lego than lego does nowadays.

      • Minecraft reminds me more of lego than lego does nowadays.

        Well said. Insightful in fact. Plus who has all that disposable cash plus real-estate to store their plastic, until the end of time?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by NFN_NLN ( 633283 )

          > plus real-estate to store their plastic, until the end of time?

          The usual suspects would be Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines, Bangladesh...

          "Where does your plastic go? Global investigation reveals America's dirty secret"
          https://www.theguardian.com/us... [theguardian.com]

        • Millennials that liked legos as kids. Sets like this are not targeted at kids, and never have been. They're targeted at adults with money that have nostalgia about legos, and whatever the set theme is.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )

        There is Minecraft LEGO sets too. Probably the least effort LEGO has ever needed to put into a licensed property.

      • These are specialized "fandom" kits for the uber fans. Lord Of The Rings: Rivendell, Gothem City, Hogwarts, Mandalorian Razor Crest, etc. These are not generic Lego bricks to fuel kid's imaginations. They are dedicated kits targeted to fans of specific genres, like a "paint by number" project. Think of them as jigsaw puzzels in Legos rather than kid's toys.

        If you think $500 is pricey, then google "doll houses" and look at the range of prices for kids toys, dedicated themes, and ultra collectables. Ast [wikipedia.org]

      • They've been releasing a lot of kits that are flowers or include a lot of foliage lately.

      • They are more like building a model airplane than modular building blocks. You might as well put the Cra-gl-e on the blocks as you build them.

      • Re:Ingenuity too (Score:5, Informative)

        by Burdell ( 228580 ) on Sunday February 12, 2023 @12:01PM (#63287181)

        Aside from the minifigs and the shard of Narsil, I don't see anything that looks custom. It's all standard pieces, at most maybe in some different colors. It looks like the art/book/etc. are stickers, so no printed pieces.

        I guess you just can't stand that everything isn't 2x4 classic bricks, but the world has moved on. Don't look at the lumber aisles at your hardware store, they have more than 2x4 boards now too!

      • And it's because Lego makes money off this. However they continue to sell more generic Lego sets.

    • You can still buy the original Legos.

      Go to Amazon and type "Lego bucket of bricks".

      If you want to save money, go to eBay or Craigslist and buy a box of used bricks for 10% of the price. Slosh them around in a sink with some dishwashing detergent to get the boogers off, and they're as good as new.

      • Re:Lego has lost its simple modularity (Score:4, Interesting)

        by RockDoctor ( 15477 ) on Sunday February 12, 2023 @08:46AM (#63286765) Journal
        Why not just put them in the washing machine? Cool wash (what's the softening point of a Lego? Stick one in a kettle and boil it ; if it comes out unbent, it's washing machine safe, even on a boil wash ; any cooler wash will be fine.), maybe a dash of bleach? Better field test the bleach on a coloured brick in the pan too - it might fade the colour.
        • That’s what we did to clean our old LEGO from the 70s and 80s: dump in a jute bag and run them in a 40c degrees laundry, don’t spin dry. Take out the longer Technic pieces, they are kind of fragile.

    • This right there.

      I don't say that it's not beautiful or not detailed, what I say is that this is not Lego. Lego's main appeal to me as a kid was the possibility to build the item on the box, yes, but I could take those blocks, and the rest of my blocks, and build something completely different as well. I wasn't limited to what the designers had in mind.

      I also feel like the designers got lazy. Back in the good old days of the 80s, the designers had to get creative with what they had. They might have gotten a

    • Don't think of it as a lego set, think of it as a 3D puzzle. It's a very cool 3D puzzle.

    • Re:Lego has lost its simple modularity (Score:5, Informative)

      by PsychoSlashDot ( 207849 ) on Sunday February 12, 2023 @07:17AM (#63286635)

      I loved Lego as a kid. I love how the bricks were all rectangular and modular, or perhaps with specific roles like axles and wheels. Now they're making things like trees that can only be a tree, and so on. The beauty of the original (circa 80s) Lego is that it relied on your imagination more.

      As it happens, that's just not true.

      What you're looking at is that Lego now has enough variety in small parts with interesting connection points that it's now possible to create more intricate designs. With the inclusion of Technic parts which are often used for structural framework plus SNOT (studs not on top) building techniques, designers can make things that are 100% true to the Lego ethos but also look better.
      What I'm saying is that the "trees that can only be a tree" assertion is patently false. Those trees are comprised of parts that are useful in many, many other ways. They do not have specific roles. There are very few modern Lego elements that do, and those are generally things like wheel hubs.

      I'd recommend hitting a site like Rebrickable, taking a look at an intricate design, and hitting the Inventory tab where you can see the actual parts involved. I think you'll be surprised. If you can't imagine the parts being used in any other way than the designer did, that's your imagination being limited, not the parts.

    • Tree in 1975 (Score:5, Informative)

      by michaelmalak ( 91262 ) <michael@michaelmalak.com> on Sunday February 12, 2023 @08:45AM (#63286761) Homepage
      LEGO had a single-piece tree as part of its 1975 set 363: Hospital [brickset.com].

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Burdell ( 228580 )

      This is just typical boomer-style ignorant hate for what came later.

      At the start of COVID, I got into adult-scale LEGO sets, including the recent Eiffel Tower, which has a bunch of trees in the park underneath. All of them were built from regular bricks (sooo many pieces), rather than being single-piece trees like from my childhood sets from the 1970s.

      LEGO did have an era where they were producing more unique pieces for sets, but that's rare now. I've built several dozen large sets (and a bunch of small "gi

      • There is a significant difference between building scale models and modular play blocks. If you want to build models, then build models. Glue those blocks in place so your work doesnt fall apart when the cat walks by. But building models is a hobby, not play. Its fun. I wont discount that in the least. I strongly advocate building models so people can put their damn furniture together later in life. But modular playing blocks were a different sort of play. Lego jumped into the Erector, Lincoln log, and Tin

        • Re: Lego has lost its simple modularity (Score:5, Informative)

          by Burdell ( 228580 ) on Sunday February 12, 2023 @11:08AM (#63287051)

          This is still just reciting tired boomer arguments that don't hold water. LEGO isn't living off of patents, they make more modular pieces now than say 50 years ago, but they're still modular pieces. There are tons of sets that are still full of the same modular pieces as decades ago.

          Part of the reason LEGO is king is also because of their attention to detail. The pieces are manufactured to very exacting tolerances, so that pieces from the 1960s still hold up and work with today's pieces. The various knock-off manufacturers have pieces that just don't fit together as reliably as LEGO (and also wear out/break rapidly).

          LEGO does typically create a few new bricks every year; a couple of my Technics sets last year had a new type of pin. But the sets are still largely the same pieces (or variations of them) as I had in the 1970s; in fact, when I wanted to change something, I got out my childhood collection and used a piece or two from there.

          The people who repeated these tired claims haven't actually looked at LEGO in years. The sets aimed at kids don't look that much different from the sets I had (well, still have) as a kid, plus they have a bunch of sets that are just big collections of bricks (with some starter ideas, but not a single set of instructions for the whole set).

          • You're 100% right on this. Lego's dominance has nothing to do with patents and has everything to do with design philosophy.

            Case in point. My son loves Pokemon, but for building block licensed content Pokemon chose to go with MegaBlox so we buy those from time to time. MegaBlox is a Canadian brand, owned by Mattel, but manufactured in China. My son has 3 sets of comparison: my old Legos from decades ago, newer modern Lego sets, and Pokemon MegaBlox sets.

            The older sets of mine are mixed and he makes

        • Here in the South-Americas, it has been my experience that Asian brands have wiped away all spots in all but the most exclusive toy stores.

          Now I am a boomer who played (a lot!) with Lego growing up in the 70's an 80's in the Netherlands. So I see the point many here try to make. I also see that even with the more basic sets from Asian brands at much lower prices, people aren't buying into the concept Lego had in the 70's and 80's.

          As if the buyers only want to see one model or a 3D puzzle of sorts. Their lac

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by e3m4n ( 947977 )
            As a kid in the 70s and 80s we used LEGO bricks to make things for our GI Joe and Star Wars action figures to interact with. Bunkers, cantinas, power modules for Slave 1 to refuel, etc.
    • It was intended go be the Swedish word Legot (sp?) meaning "good play". I read that on the internet somewhere. Theres really not a lot of play in building a model airplane. Its a hobby intended for single use. It can be quite enjoyable, building models, but im not one who would equate it to actual play. Not the same kind of play a couple of old school tonka trucks and a dirt mound provided for sure.
    • Those are 3d puzzles, it's not the same game. I don't know why but some people enjoy assembling small pieces in a pre determined configuration.
    • I had Lego plants and trees in the '80s, and apparently they had them as far back as the '50s.
    • I agree with the sentiment but this set is an exception. Mind you, I grew up with 2x4 bricks in 7 colors and once organized an academic panel on Right To Repair. The presentation took as its point of departure a lament that Lego gradually became more about specialized pieces with franchise tie-ins than modular building. Look carefully at the Rivendell set, however, and you'll find tons of examples of creative reuse. The waterfall is made of translucent blue cockpit pieces. The chairs are built from popsic

    • "Lego... relied on your imagination more"

      Maybe you shouldn't blame your lack of imagination on the pieces available.

      Actual creative people not only think about what different pieces they can use to build specific things but also what different things they can build using specific pieces. The concept is called Nice Piece Usage or Nice Part Usage (NPU).

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Circular ( 58913 )

      70s-80s Lego kid here, and you are so unbelievably wrong on this I question if you ever had Lego as a kid in the 80s

      I vividly recall having many tree "bricks", which were a solid green tree.
      These could literally be nothing BUT a tree, you couldn't even stack other bricks on said tree.
      It had exactly one function, which was to plug into a baseplate and stand there looking like a tree.

    • Even my legos in the 1970s had dedicated trees.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      I loved Lego as a kid. I love how the bricks were all rectangular and modular, or perhaps with specific roles like axles and wheels. Now they're making things like trees that can only be a tree, and so on. The beauty of the original (circa 80s) Lego is that it relied on your imagination more.

      Patently false.

      First, if you want to play with Lego like that from the past - you still can - all those pieces are still available. I believe you can get parts and sets that are generic collections of pieces.

      And to say

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by vux984 ( 928602 )

      Do you actually play with lego anymore?

      There was a while in the 90s where lego was releasing major custom parts with every set that really only could be used for that thing. The lego space "UFO" era was probably the peak of that trend, or at least an iconic manifestation of the "problem". But it hasn't been a problem for 20 years.

      That said, modern Lego set design has evolved, there is a trend now called "SNOT" (aka studs-not-on-top) on official sets that uses a variety of intricate constructions using small

    • I understand why you'd think that. I thought the same thing as an AFOL (Adult Fan of Lego).

      Then I saw Lego Masters [wikipedia.org] and learned just how much I'd missed Lego and how it has evolved.

      The specialty pieces do constrict some, but there's a whole thing called NPU (Nice Part Usage) [brickresales.com.au] where you use pieces in unexpected ways. Some of the best Lego creators are pretty incredible with how they use pieces in unexpected ways. Here is one example [thebrickblogger.com]. Here's a bunch more [brothers-brick.com].

      So if you start using those pieces and as

    • I don't really like the new sets either, but I see what the other posters are saying. I haven't kept up with the vast variety of new blocks (who has that kind of time)?

      But luckily, the Gandalf character can be reused as Magneto in an X-men set, and of course there's that amazing crossover where the elf lord says "Welcome to Rivendell... Mr Anderson!"

    • Anyone who says things like this has obviously never really partaken in the “MoC” community and seen some of the fabulous ways in which these “single use” parts have been used.

      Lets just say that your view isnt a new one, and its also one which is constantly disproven by the community at large.

      There are people out there literally salivating at getting these new “single use” parts.

  • We're going by the movies now? (Score:3)

    by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday February 12, 2023 @04:50AM (#63286469)

    Because I'm pretty sure, in the actual books written by Tolkien, all the Rivendell stuff happens in the first book.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by bjoast ( 1310293 )
      It's the same in the movies. The author of the article has it wrong.
    • Thirded.

      Between "The Hobbit" and "The Fellowship of the Ring", there are maybe three paragraphs describing Riven dell. A few stock phrases repeated in hindsight occasionally in the other books. Thin base material for either the film's set designer, or Lego's designers to work from.

      I hope that Lego have pre-emptively paid (whoever owns the film rights) a licensing fee for copying their set designer's work. Cheaper than lawyer's fees, and we all want the lawyers to starve, don't we#?

  • For all the cost of this set, it's too bad LEGO will cheap out on the packaging like usual - a cardboard box that cannot be closed once opened, and parts in flimsy cellophane bags that are ripped open and unusable. Apparently it's too effort for LEGO to provide pieces in ziploc bags or some kind of vacuum formed PET / cardboard tray with a cover even when people are forking out $500 for a kit.

    • You assume it's "being cheap" and "too much effort". Another entirely plausible possibility is that Lego know this undermines the secondhand market - since most buyers will be hesitant about buying a sticky-taped box full of loose rubble. Never ascribe to laziness what can easily be explained by greed.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DrXym ( 126579 )

        Well LEGO are definitely greedy - £500 for a bunch of injection moulded bits. But this nonsense goes across their entire range and it does just seem deliberately cheap and annoying. I know when my kid went through a phase, not one damned box took any consideration of what happens when someone disassembles the model and wants to safely store it away again.

        • Maybe the missing tray is a saving but tell me what the cost to Lego is if the box has a side flap that actually reseals like - every other box in history?

          It doesn't feel cheap to me, it feels like sabotage or "planned obsolescence". It's like "new car smell" but for packaging. I'm certain it's deliberate. A big box of "mixed lego" doesn't undermine their market the same way a "built once" secondhand set in an undamaged box would.

          Continuing with the car analogy, they say a new car loses 80 of it's value wh

  • I loved Legos as a kid and it makes sense why they are still popular. Still, it's insane to charge $500 for bits of molded plastic. This isn't like a Videocard with complex electronics that requires advanced fabrication facilities in order to create. I look forward to when these can be 3D printed, hopefully in the near future.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jonwil ( 467024 )

      How much of that $500 is going to the rights holders of the LOTR IP?

      As for 3D printed bricks, I doubt even the best 3D printer out there can produce parts to the same tolerances as a high-precision injection mold of the sort LEGO uses. Maybe 3D printing will get there but unless there is something I missed, it's not there yet.

      • Re:Lego cost is crazy (Score:4, Informative)

        by Shades72 ( 6355170 ) on Sunday February 12, 2023 @02:51PM (#63287485)

        Tried exactly that with a PLA 3D printer. And the results were less than satisfactory. Even with the best settings I could come up with (in combination with that printer), it is unsatisfactory.

        I rather go out and buy some Asian brands that make Lego-like bricks. And even though they use rather good to great injection molding, these bricks don't feel exactly the same as Lego does.

        Understand me correctly, these bricks do not feel that different or much worse than Lego, but the experience is also not exactly the same.

        But 3D printed Lego bricks? Barely better than nothing.

        Had to leave all Lego behind when moving to South-America, but since then I have acquired a few sets, each from different Asian brands. Most of it is interchangeable between brands. Also got some technical Lego-like sets, which can be interchanged with all of the brands.

        And those are a lot cheaper than Lego's sets. Not cheap when set against income, but Lego is here just as expensive or more expensive than in Europe. People here on average make between 3 to four times less than in Europe, so Lego is a rich man's toy around here. Those Asian brands are about 3 to 4 times cheaper.

        You'll notice though. The quality of packaging, manuals, models are good, but not near the level of the Lego manuals and models.

        Have to note that I grew up with Lego manuals from the 70's and 80's. Which I found to be excellent. After that I completely stopped with Lego for decades, so I have no reference point to modern Lego manuals. I assume the quality of Lego manuals didn't went down since.

    • Sure, Lego's expensive. But with the exception of the engine in your car, those bricks are probably the most accurately-made items you own, with a size tolerance of 0.04 mm.
      Buy a non-Lego brick set to find out why that matters.

    • Re:Lego cost is crazy (Score:4, Informative)

      by altp ( 108775 ) on Sunday February 12, 2023 @08:09AM (#63286703)

      At 6167 pieces, $500 is less than 10 cents per brick, which is the "going rate" when determining if a set is a decent value or not. that bricks in this set are about 8 cents each ... which isn't bad, especially when you consider the minifig count and the licensing.

    • It's worth remember that Lego's production line is entirely automated and uses one of the worlds cheapest materials. The real cost of any given lego set can be measured in cents. Marketing and distribution are Legos only real costs and it's still negligible (mostly just producing cartoons and games to rope in children).

      If you want cheap building blocks just buy from a competitor - Like this one : 1000 blocks for AUD$12
      https://www.kmart.com.au/produ... [kmart.com.au]

      Don't buy too cheap though. Most of the low-end sets have

  • ... in your bedroom / parents basement?
  • That set looks quite small for $500!!

  • Is this a factual error? (Score:4, Informative)

    by perkypangolin ( 10295227 ) on Sunday February 12, 2023 @07:52AM (#63286683)
    "In J.R.R. Tolkein's The Two Towers, it's in Elrond's home city of Rivendell that Frodo chooses to destroy the ring of power. " I'm not sure what this means, and either way it sounds wrong. the Council of Elrond is in Fellowship, not Two Towers. In fact, Frodo says within the first 100 pages of The Fellowship that he "Really wants to destroy the ring"; the council of Elrond is more about everyone else deciding who is actually going to take the ring to Mt. Doom, as Frodo had hoped that he would only have to carry it to Rivendell. I couldn't find this mistake in the other articles, so it looks like it's Slashdot's error, which is kind of bizarre. Frodo decided to destroy the ring as soon as Gandalf explained it's lore, and he was chosen to be the ring bearer in the Council of Elrond. In fact, he had "Long foreseen" that he would be the bearer, (and it was Bilbo who actually spoke up first and offered to be the ring bearer, until the council said "sit down boomer you too old" in so many words.

    • It seems not. Once Gandalf has explained about the ring, (towards the end of chapter 2 "The Shadow of the Past") Frodo says that he should destroy the ring - but once Gandalf says that this can be only be done at Mount Doom, Frodo doubts that he could do that. He decides to keep the ring and guard it, and to leave the Shire to protect the population of the Shire from attack (as Sauron now knows about the Shire) - but has no destination in mind, only hiding. It's only at the start of the next chapter that Ga

  • Why? (Score:2)

    by ruddk ( 5153113 )

    I don’t get it. 500 USD? That’s a lot of money to spend on something like that.

  • LEGO had a single-piece tree as part of its 1975 set 363: Hospital [brickset.com].

  • This is clearly just a profit grab. One can add very little imagination to this product, it is all given to you. This is purely marketing to drive profits. Lego product tie-ins to everything has gotten boring/expected, the only thing extraordinary about them is the price. How many people will buy this purely as a collectible/'investment'?

  • In J.R.R. Tolkein's The Two Towers, it's in Elrond's home city of Rivendell that Frodo chooses to destroy the ring of power.

    Uh, no, that happens in The Fellowship of the Ring, the first volume.

  • Editor David: "In J.R.R. Tolkein's The Two Towers, it's in Elrond's home city of Rivendell that Frodo chooses to destroy the ring of power."

    1. Elrond doesn't have a city. It's a very large settlement, at most.
    2. Frodo doesn't "chose" to destroy the Ring - that's the decision of the Council,
            and Frodo accepts the burden of carrying it out.
    3. Phrasing? He chooses to destroy the Ring in the city?

Slashdot Top Deals

Those who do things in a noble spirit of self-sacrifice are to be avoided at all costs. -- N. Alexander.

Close