Review: 10367 The Lord of the Rings: Balrog Book Nook

I can't help but wonder if Khazad-Dûm was meant to be a play on "chasm of doom"

Fellowship Gandalf needs a unique hairpiece. It’s shameful they haven’t done this yet.

What's that going to cost in Canada? $160? I don't see that value here. I see like $80 CDN of value here. I don't see this doing super well, but then there ARE a lot of LoTR Lego fans...

I don't personally want this set but I think it is an excellent design. Placing the Balrog within just a little bit of architecture and next to a minfigure gives it a much more impressive scale than it would have as a free-standing model, even if that model were a bit bigger.

Very cool, but very pricey. Still tempting though.

What are the dimensions when closed?

@CapnRex101 said:
@kolaxanthe said:
[[Very cool, but very pricey. Still tempting though.

What are the dimensions when closed?]]

14cm wide, 18cm deep and just under 23cm tall.]]

Thank you

@Lasers said:
"What's that going to cost in Canada? $160? I don't see that value here. I see like $80 CDN of value here. I don't see this doing super well, but then there ARE a lot of LoTR Lego fans..."

It's actually $150 in Canada... still too expensive and not a set that interests me personally, but it's a more favorable exchange rate than we normally get!!

I have very little interest in this set and I believe the beast should have a bit more fire (trans-orange) parts near the mouth,around the head (despite the apparently flawless head) and on the torso - maybe even a light piece to emphasize it (a bit like the eye of Sauron). Limited resources dictate that I cannot collect all themes but I really like Rivendell (If I manage to get one of the series that'll be that one).

But, if the cloth parts for the wings are to be available on PAB then, you could potentially build an army (squad) of Fell Beast 40693. Let's hope - the wings of D&D's red dragon are available (but quite expensive) on PAB.

@Austin_Powers Get. Out.

;)

@dimc said:
" @tne328 said:
" @WolfpackBricksStudios said:
"I can't help but wonder if Khazad-Dûm was meant to be a play on "chasm of doom""

Not really. "Khazad" is well established as being "dwarves" in the Dwarvish language, and is used in numerous other contexts."

Not to mention Tolkien's obsession with language. That would be incredibly basic for him lol. "

Well, some have accused the professor of some fairly basic names, though usually it’s when we get the Common Speech versions. Naming Sauron’s volcano “Mount Doom”, for instance, or the fact that the bearded tree giant is named “Treebeard”. (Who I hope is in the docket for an upcoming set, by the way.)

I really liked the design Lego came up with for the Balrog in the video games back in the day, and I think this version could have benefited from some cues from that. The whip looked rather more impressive, among other things.

@Lyichir said:
"You say that you think the Balrog could be "bigger and more intimidating"... I'm not sure I agree, since much larger would be both more unwieldy for play and more inconvenient for display (appearing, as it does, mainly in an underground scene). The size they've chosen seems pretty great to me, towering over minifigures like Gandalf here while still being small enough to reasonably build a display around."

I think it does need to be bigger, only because of this - the more I look at, the more I see that its head is very oversized compared to its body. This Balrog is a little too chonky.

I'm really disappointed in this one.

I'd prefer book ends over book nook and when this is in nook fan it looks fine.

But opened up it just is incredibly lacking. The flames look bad. The gray parts for Moira are good, but overall it's just severely lacking.

At first I was afraid of the price, because 130 USD + VAT (21% in my country) is about 157 USD, but now I see that sellers offer the set for a total price equal to 111 USD, that doesn't look so bad anymore. I agree with the author of the review that this set would be better by being made as part of a diorama series. And the flames seem too "artsy" to me. I was also expecting a unique print for Gandalf, but I can live with that. The last thumb down is for the whip, it doesn't look dangerous at all.

@yellowcastle said:
" @WolfpackBricksStudios said:
" @ninjabiomech said:
"Why is reusing parts from a gwp wrong?"

Because "eVerYthIng HAs tO bE eXclUsiVe sO onLy I hAve thIs sUper VAluaBle thInG anD nO OnE eLsE dOEs HA HA SUCKS TO BE YOU" apparently"
The dedication it took to write that is impressive. The sentiment not so much. :o)

@Maxbricks14
"I really like this, a lot. People are complaining too much."
I really don't like this, a lot. People are complaining the right amount.

@StyleCounselor
"It will take a discount or really good GWP before I take the plunge into the chasm with this Balrog of Morgoth."
I could just lose the GWP for you right now if that would help?"

Something happened that involved a condom, a Lego account, and a time machine. I think I'm already having exclusive GWP orders canceled before they are even designed!

I'm also apparently my own grandfather, who was a Lego fanatic, I hear.

I think the Balrog's head looks awful, personally. Just a handful of pieces, his face looks so dumb and round.

They should've made the entire creature bigger, and his head would've been able to be more complex.

Easy pass, and I'm a huge LotR fan.

@TeriXeri said:
" @yellowcastle said:
"I can't speak for everyone but when I encountered a flaming demon deep below the earth, the flames were indeed pitiful little orange squiggles."

76289 Thor vs. Surtur Construction Figure does the flaming creature look a lot better and that's a €30 set."
My current balrog is a modded Surtur. The moment the Book Nook balrog is released and indefinitely thereafter, I will be… continuing to use my Surtur as a balrog. It captures the balrog’s monstrousness so much more effectively than the official one. It’s a shame, really.

I'm probably in the minority here, but even though it's a good set that I really want, I cannot justify the cost here. So like the servant of the Secret Fire himself, I must make a stand against these exorbitant prices.

@PurpleDave said:
" @BabuBrick said:
"Also, this is the first time that Gandalf has included his light crystal with his staff in a set, which is neat."

Supposedly he used at least two more in the LotR trilogy, but I can't think of where, or why. I think The Hobbit features at least one more, but I don't know if that's one of the five."

In the Extended Edition of Return of the King, Gandalf looses his White Wizard staff during his standoff with the Witch-King (a scene that, when viewed with Tolkien's lore in context, makes no sense and leaves me cringing every time). He fights only with Glamdring at the Black Gate. He is then seen with another white staff — seemingly identical in design — during the movie's ending scene at the Grey Havens.

Yes, his staff in the Hobbit is indeed a separate staff, but he looses that one in The Desolation of Smaug. It's pretty much disintegrated during his contest with the Necromancer (a.k.a. Sauron) in Dol Goldur. After the White Council rescues Gandalf from Dol Goldur in The Battle of the Five Armies, Radagast gives his staff to Gandalf (again, Extended Edition only), seeing that the Grey Wizard will have the greater need of it. We're then meant to assume that this staff that Radagast gives him is the same one that Gandalf has at the start of Fellowship of the Ring.

the book nook format is unique,interesting since based off books anyways.
brings it full circle back to books-, from movies shows ect.

I think it looks great ! The only issue is the price, and I do not expect a GWP for this set, so for once I will wait to get it at a discount. I do not plan to use it as a book nook but rather to display it together with my Mines of Moria set :-)

It's a cool set, don't get me wrong, but man it's so overpriced...

@legoDad42 said:
"Same with mine, on the phone a lot but it's a swiss army knife. Great for everything. I read more than ever on my phone. Between Lego building of course 'ahem'."

I frequently use my phone *while* building Lego. Specifically, I watch/listen to my YouTube watch later playlist while building.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @BabuBrick said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @BabuBrick said:
"Also, this is the first time that Gandalf has included his light crystal with his staff in a set, which is neat."

Supposedly he used at least two more in the LotR trilogy, but I can't think of where, or why. I think The Hobbit features at least one more, but I don't know if that's one of the five."

In the Extended Edition of Return of the King, Gandalf looses his White Wizard staff during his standoff with the Witch-King (a scene that, when viewed with Tolkien's lore in context, makes no sense and leaves me cringing every time). He fights only with Glamdring at the Black Gate. He is then seen with another white staff — seemingly identical in design — during the movie's ending scene at the Grey Havens.

Yes, his staff in the Hobbit is indeed a separate staff, but he looses that one in The Desolation of Smaug. It's pretty much disintegrated during his contest with the Necromancer (a.k.a. Sauron) in Dol Goldur. After the White Council rescues Gandalf from Dol Goldur in The Battle of the Five Armies, Radagast gives his staff to Gandalf (again, Extended Edition only), seeing that the Grey Wizard will have the greater need of it. We're then meant to assume that this staff that Radagast gives him is the same one that Gandalf has at the start of Fellowship of the Ring."

Not quite. Remember, he also loses his staff to Sarumon during the Wizard Battle at Orthanc.

Given Gandalf's propensity for losing his staff, I don't think there's any fair assumption other than his 'staff' is from some nearby convenient tree and he's undoubtedly about to lose another one.

Arnor: "Next time, try not to lose it."
Wielder of the Flame of Arnor: "Yes, master."
"This weapon is your life."
"I try, master."
"Why do I get the feeling you're going to be the death of me?"

(a short time later)
"Not again!"

(an even shorter time later)
"I am a slow learner."

(a miniscule moment of time later)
"Aaaaaaargh." (clutches arm stump)"

I said, “at the start of FotR,” not for the whole film. @PurpleDave already mentioned that he loses that staff (Radagast’s) to Saruman at Orthanc.

Also, you mentioned the Flame of Arnor. Arnor was the name of the northern Númenórean kingdom in Middle-earth. Gandalf wields the Flame of Anor.

@PurpleDave said:
" @BabuBrick:
Wow, it gets messier than I originally thought. According to a Screenrant article, this is every staff he’s seen using across six films:

1: He’s got what might be his _original_ staff at the beginning of The Hobbit. Loses it to the Necromancer (if the scene isn’t based on any original text, this may not have happened in the books).

2: Radagast gives him his _spare_ staff (apparently some wizards are more forward-thinking). At this point, it looks like dude just yoinked a sapling out of the ground and broke off the longest roots.

3: Supposedly he’s still using the same staff at the start of LotR, but either the root tangle has worn down, or he spent some time cleaning it up, so it doesn’t look the same as it did in the Battle of the Five Armies. Loses it to Saruman, but it’s never explicitly destroyed, so it may still be at Orthanc.

4: Gets a new staff in Rivendell. Book says it’s destroyed on the bridge, movie just shows that he lost it (where exactly it ended up is hard to say, but probably either still on the broken bridge, or fallen into the lake).

5: Either gets reincarnated with a new staff in hand (but no clothes), or possibly receives one from Galadriel (not sure how that fits into continuity). Loses it to the Witch-King.

6: And has what looks like the same staff, but bigger, when he boards the ship with Bilbo. Maybe repaired, maybe just a different staff with the same design. I know they used size-adjusted stand-ins early on to make the Hobbits and Gimli appear smaller, or the human-sized people appear larger, but supposedly they just used careful framing to trick the eye later on. Still, I have to wonder if maybe they accidentally gave him Big Gandalf’s staff by accident.

Still, the two Gollum films leave plenty of opportunity for him to lose more that we weren’t even aware of before.

@StyleCounselor:
I already mentioned that one, the Rivendell staff, and the white staff in an earlier post."

Nice. I’ll have to check out that article.

@BabuBrick said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @BabuBrick said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @BabuBrick said:
"Also, this is the first time that Gandalf has included his light crystal with his staff in a set, which is neat."

Supposedly he used at least two more in the LotR trilogy, but I can't think of where, or why. I think The Hobbit features at least one more, but I don't know if that's one of the five."

In the Extended Edition of Return of the King, Gandalf looses his White Wizard staff during his standoff with the Witch-King (a scene that, when viewed with Tolkien's lore in context, makes no sense and leaves me cringing every time). He fights only with Glamdring at the Black Gate. He is then seen with another white staff — seemingly identical in design — during the movie's ending scene at the Grey Havens.

Yes, his staff in the Hobbit is indeed a separate staff, but he looses that one in The Desolation of Smaug. It's pretty much disintegrated during his contest with the Necromancer (a.k.a. Sauron) in Dol Goldur. After the White Council rescues Gandalf from Dol Goldur in The Battle of the Five Armies, Radagast gives his staff to Gandalf (again, Extended Edition only), seeing that the Grey Wizard will have the greater need of it. We're then meant to assume that this staff that Radagast gives him is the same one that Gandalf has at the start of Fellowship of the Ring."

Not quite. Remember, he also loses his staff to Sarumon during the Wizard Battle at Orthanc.

Given Gandalf's propensity for losing his staff, I don't think there's any fair assumption other than his 'staff' is from some nearby convenient tree and he's undoubtedly about to lose another one.

Arnor: "Next time, try not to lose it."
Wielder of the Flame of Arnor: "Yes, master."
"This weapon is your life."
"I try, master."
"Why do I get the feeling you're going to be the death of me?"

(a short time later)
"Not again!"

(an even shorter time later)
"I am a slow learner."

(a miniscule moment of time later)
"Aaaaaaargh." (clutches arm stump)"

I said, “at the start of FotR,” not for the whole film. @PurpleDave already mentioned that he loses that staff (Radagast’s) to Saruman at Orthanc.

Also, you mentioned the Flame of Arnor. Arnor was the name of the northern Númenórean kingdom in Middle-earth. Gandalf wields the Flame of Anor."

I'd say you both are wielding the staff of Anor with this, lol. :o)

@BabuBrick said:
"Nice. I’ll have to check out that article."

https://screenrant.com/lord-rings-movies-gandalf-staffs-grey-white-explained/

It does a good job of explaining when all the prop changes happen, but story wise there are still issues. They say five, but they count the White Staff and the Great White Staff as the same item, even though they’re apparently not even the same size, and the former is vaporized. I was thinking that might have been a retcon to explain why they don’t show him wielding it in the Black Gate battle, but then that would appear to have introduced a different continuity error if it’s really supposed to be the same one at the Grey Havens.

Then they count Radagast’s spare and the Fellowship staff as different, even while providing a plausible explanation for why they believe the two are the same staff. It’s entirely possible that he lost yet another staff between Five Armies and Fellowship, and we just haven’t seen anything that spells this out, but the article seems to count them as the same chunk of wood. So depending on how you interpret events, that’s 4, 5, 5, or 6 different sticks that he carries.

The Galadriel explanation bugs me, though. If he came back and interacted with someone like her, shouldn’t _she_ have jogged his memory before he mysteriously appears in Fangorn Forest? If he got reincarnated with supercharged authority (I’ve watched a video that basically suggest Grey is the “plausible deniability” version, while White is the “thumb on the scales” version because of how much the situation changed during the past few decades), it would make more sense that the staff was of divine origin, and was given to him as he was reincarnated.

@StyleCounselor said:

"So, it's me, now, that can't be bothered to read the entire Prof Purple Babu thread, and yet still bothers to put in his two cents. ;)

Never let the facts get in the way of good comedy. People need to laugh- especially at themselves. "

I shouldn’t have corrected you. If I offended you, I apologize. I appreciate your input.

BTW, your Anakin-Gandalf joke was really funny — the similarities had occurred to me as well, lol.

No hard feelings buddy, if there were any.

:)

@BabuBrick said:
" @StyleCounselor said:

"So, it's me, now, that can't be bothered to read the entire Prof Purple Babu thread, and yet still bothers to put in his two cents. ;)

Never let the facts get in the way of good comedy. People need to laugh- especially at themselves. "

I shouldn’t have corrected you. If I offended you, I apologize. I appreciate your input.

BTW, your Anakin-Gandalf joke was really funny — the similarities had occurred to me as well, lol.

No hard feelings buddy, if there were any.

:)"

No worries, @StyleCounselor has surprisingly low midi-chlorians so even if offended, there's very little chance of a force choke.

Even now that I do almost all my reading on Kindle, I don't have space on my bookshelves for a Book Nook, and I don't think this looks particularly good as one anyway. (Reminds me too much of the various Jurassic sets with a large dinosaur tightly constrained in a truck!) However, the extended version is quite handsome, even though I think adding more flames to the background would improve it. I also like the inclusion of the Fell Beast's wings--I refuse to have Barad-dur in my house, so did not get it, despite really liking the GWP. Now I have a chance to MOC my own version. Given this set is also much less expensive than the Shire--which I find tempting but not tempting enough to buy at the requested price--I will probably buy it, even though I agree that it doesn't give very good value for money.

Wow. I don't usually follow what Marvel sets are available, but when I clicked to look at that Thor vs "basically Marvel Balrog" set someone mentioned and saw it was 30$ and even discounted to 20, it makes this look even more insane! That is basically the same set as this with a licensed theme and is 100$ cheaper.

@yellowcastle said:
" @BabuBrick said:
" @StyleCounselor said:

"So, it's me, now, that can't be bothered to read the entire Prof Purple Babu thread, and yet still bothers to put in his two cents. ;)

Never let the facts get in the way of good comedy. People need to laugh- especially at themselves. "

I shouldn’t have corrected you. If I offended you, I apologize. I appreciate your input.

BTW, your Anakin-Gandalf joke was really funny — the similarities had occurred to me as well, lol.

No hard feelings buddy, if there were any.

:)"

No worries, @StyleCounselor has surprisingly low midi-chlorians so even if offended, there's very little chance of a force choke."

No worries. I deserve some comeuppance more than most. Thanks for the compliment. All good.

My Force doesn't work that way, Yellow. It promotes joy and happiness, to an extent anyway. Let's just say YOU can expect another bundle of joy. ;)

@yellowcastle said:
" @BabuBrick said:
" @StyleCounselor said:

"So, it's me, now, that can't be bothered to read the entire Prof Purple Babu thread, and yet still bothers to put in his two cents. ;)

Never let the facts get in the way of good comedy. People need to laugh- especially at themselves. "

I shouldn’t have corrected you. If I offended you, I apologize. I appreciate your input.

BTW, your Anakin-Gandalf joke was really funny — the similarities had occurred to me as well, lol.

No hard feelings buddy, if there were any.

:)"

No worries, @StyleCounselor has surprisingly low midi-chlorians so even if offended, there's very little chance of a force choke."

Plus he probably wouldn’t notice if he’s been insulted anyways.

@PurpleDave said:
" @yellowcastle said:
" @BabuBrick said:
" @StyleCounselor said:

"So, it's me, now, that can't be bothered to read the entire Prof Purple Babu thread, and yet still bothers to put in his two cents. ;)

Never let the facts get in the way of good comedy. People need to laugh- especially at themselves. "

I shouldn’t have corrected you. If I offended you, I apologize. I appreciate your input.

BTW, your Anakin-Gandalf joke was really funny — the similarities had occurred to me as well, lol.

No hard feelings buddy, if there were any.

:)"

No worries, @StyleCounselor has surprisingly low midi-chlorians so even if offended, there's very little chance of a force choke."

Plus he probably wouldn’t notice if he’s been insulted anyways."

A most important skill indeed.

The design of the columns is nice, but I otherwise don't find this set compelling.

That being said, I know that fans have been hoping for a Lego Balrog since Lego's first Lord of the Rings sets were released in 2012, so it's nice to see one finally arrive in the Lego world!

This set, 10351, and 76450 all came out around the same time, so it appears Lego is trying to get into the book nook market. I'm hoping for a "Journey to the West" book nook to tie in with Monkie Kid.

@Maxbricks14 said:
"I really like this, a lot. People are complaining too much."

Took too long to find this comment and look at how highly rated it is. Seriously where is the problem? I'm not scrambling to get this, but it looks great and I like how it's designed to fit among my Tolkien novels.

This review says it's excessively priced, but how? Be realistic. It fits the golden 10.0 cents per piece ratio and also includes a $5 figure and special wing parts, plus it's licensed Lord of the Rings. I know folks like to think that it should come down to the weight of a set, but the molding of each individual piece, no matter how small, is a cost that shouldn't be discounted and will always be factored in. This reviewer also shows off the option to fold it up and actually get it to fit nicely on a bookshelf, but then also uses that function to tear it down? I'm imagining a friend seeing it among my books, then me pulling it out and opening it to show it off, LIKE A BOOK.

There will certainly be sale prices, too.

People just love bad news, or contrived bad news. This is a cool idea.

@ItsTwentyBelow said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"I really like this, a lot. People are complaining too much."

Took too long to find this comment and look at how highly rated it is. Seriously where is the problem? I'm not scrambling to get this, but it looks great and I like how it's designed to fit among my Tolkien novels.

This review says it's excessively priced, but how? Be realistic. It fits the golden 10.0 cents per piece ratio and also includes a $5 figure and special wing parts, plus it's licensed Lord of the Rings. I know folks like to think that it should come down to the weight of a set, but the molding of each individual piece, no matter how small, is a cost that shouldn't be discounted and will always be factored in. This reviewer also shows off the option to fold it up and actually get it to fit nicely on a bookshelf, but then also uses that function to tear it down? I'm imagining a friend seeing it among my books, then me pulling it out and opening it to show it off, LIKE A BOOK.

There will certainly be sale prices, too.

People just love bad news, or contrived bad news. This is a cool idea."

Exactly this (mostly). A few years ago, many reviews got peppered with complaints about “price per stuff”. This is a metric that YouTubers got people hooked on, but it’s impossible to define objectively. And if you paid attention to the people who made those complaints, “stuff” was graded much more favorably for sets they thought looked cool, and very negatively if it wasn’t something that appealed to them. “I don’t like the design, so it’s overpriced,” is the most subjective metric you can come up with.

Take the 75330 Dagobah diorama. It’s $0.09/pc right out of the box, which prevailing opinion suggests is impossible for a SW set. Problem is, people didn’t want 183 trans-green 1x1 tiles, so they didn’t think it was fair to be charged for them. It still costs money to make them, and the set would look bad without them. I can respect someone looking at it and saying they don’t like it enough to drop $90 on it, but not when they say it’s overpriced because some of the parts don’t appeal to them.

However, in this case, while I do like the set for what it is, I still hope to someday see an all-out, max detail, minifig-scale Balrog, kind of like the line of pedestal-mounted fantasy creatures they’ve been doing for Harry Potter. I can like a playscale SW spacecraft and still also want the ultra-detailed UCS version, so it’s no different for the Balrog. The only problem I have with the price is that I kinda want to buy a second copy as a starting point to building a better Balrog, and that’s a hefty chunk of change to drop on a few printed parts, a couple foil elements, and a pile of common black elements (plus a bunch of other stuff that I won’t even be able to use for the Balrog). But I once bought a $50 Tiny Turbos set because I needed two small red bricks out of it, so I’ll probably suck it up and spring for a second copy of this regardless.

@ItsTwentyBelow said:
"People just love bad news, or contrived bad news. This is a cool idea."
After dozens of critical comments across two articles, I find it a bit reductive if not dismissive to simply paint this as contrived bad news.

@CapnRex101:
Replying to both of your comments, in this case, height is the most critical dimension for appearance of scale. From the shot when Gandalf is straddling the Balrog’s chest while they’re falling, I’d say it’s maybe an inch too short. And the closed form of this set is distinct among the three Book Nooks in that it appears very much like what other members of the Fellowship would have seen looking back through the doorway towards the bridge.

“Volume of stuff” is a deceptive metric. You can take a set that builds a compact ball, throw out 20% of the parts, and use the rest to build a hollow structure with greater size. For the same cost, does the second model add more objective value? Absolutely not, but it tricks you into perceiving greater value. It’s the same metric that resulted in a mother complaining to us at a show about how her son got her to buy him an original DC’s Scarecrow minifig for I think $30, and how she’d expected for that price that it would be a lot bigger.

When it comes to sets, it’s important to remember that the cost of the plastic used to make a part is one of the least significant factors in determining how much that part costs to put on the store shelf, unless the size of the part is enormous like a baseplate (and even then, that’s not why baseplates cost so much). Labor to produce it costs more, transportation to deliver it to the stores costs more, and overhead on the store that you buy it from costs more. The difference in cost to put a 2x4 brick in your hand vs that of a 1x1 plate is negligible to the point that it won’t impact the MSRP of the set.

The one exception to this has historically been transparent parts, but that’s more tied to the fact that TLG has used transparent parts sparingly. The cost difference between running one shot of 1x1 plates in transparent vs opaque is lower than the difference with running one shot of opaque 2x4 bricks, but that’s not factoring in the cost of resetting the line for a different material, or having to produce a double set of molds to allow one shape to be made in both materials.

Basic sets tend to be filled with chunkier parts, but the price per piece tends to be fairly low compared to minifig-based themes, and yet there’s not more perceived value. The sets look simple compared to most minifig-based themes, as one should expect for sets built mostly of larger bricks. Put that in a licensed theme and people will complain that the design looks childish (which it does). Make a detailed model with smaller elements, and people will instead complain about the “volume of stuff” even when the aesthetics are significantly improved, precisely because they used smaller parts. All these 18+ sets get complaints about not being able to see where all these parts are, but that’s just a consequence of not wanting them to look like smaller Duplo models.

One factor that I’ve never seen anyone address is a trick that Disney uses in their theme parks. They have a range of attendance that they want to stay between, and when too many people keep showing up, they raise admission until it tempers interest enough to get it back in range. Kevin Hinkle once told me that he suggested the CMF MSRP should be raised, and that was back when it was $1.99 per. In just a few years, it had jumped to $4.99, so 150% price increase, and no other theme was seeing similar doubling of price. S1 was barely stocked by anyone. S2 saw wider release, but you still could hardly find them. By S4/S5, stores were grossly overpurchasing, and compensated by barely stocking S6. With wild fluctuations like that, it becomes a real logistics issue for manufacturing, so the CMF prices appear to have been spiked to the point where they sell at a solid, steady pace every release. Any perceived “licensing tax” almost certainly falls into the same category. SW Battle Packs used to be nearly impossible to get your hands on right after release because people were armybuilding those as fast as they could. If not that, it’s likely due to paying off single-use, IP-locked molds.

I am probably in the minority here, but I don't care for the look of the Balrog. I'd like to see a proper set featuring it.

"Needlessly expensive": I think its a perfect explanation for most LEGO sets, I get cheerleaders will talk about production this or that, tariffs, licensing, or price per part.. Its too expensive, period. LEGO was also cheaper before they felt that everything had to look like something other than a LEGO set. Way back when LEGO Star Wars initially came out, they were fairly well priced. Why? and no not just inflation, but a reduced palate of readily available parts and not needing much, if any, special treatment, and therefore easier to design the set... I'm sure people were out there whining 'Oh no it looked blocky'... you mean like a LEGO set?
Don't get me wrong, I like that LEGO sets have evolved to be more 'realistic' (as its also led to more things like increased animal parts and whatnot) but if it means having to pay another 10,20,30% more over the cost of if they just used other more easily produced, existing, parts but it make take away from the design a bit, umm, Ill take the latter.... And don't try to use a competition excuse either.. WHAT competition?! (other than knockoffs which will always be cheaper due to their insanely low labor and theft of IP).

LEGO could choose to make sets cheaper, both in design and in over all cost, and not necessarily by cutting corners, but it just seems like they just refuse to. Sure, people can keep making excuses, but LEGO has shown with a few sets each year that you can get a good looking set, with play value, for a good price (and sometimes under 20 dollars), but the rest? I mean look at most Star Wars sets now, aside from a very few sets per year, they are just ridiculously priced or just silly like the microfighters, and most larger sets are obviously meant for those with deep pockets.
Heck look at more 'basic' sets (looking at 'Creator' non mod sets), even those are more expensive than they should be, why? I think its simply that, again, using a crap load of tiny bricks to make it more realistic still and there is no competition, LEGO can really charge what they want (and appear to do so).
I just feel that LEGO no longer see fans of the product, they just see piggy banks.

I love LEGO, but my purchases of sets has really decreased to maybe a handful each year (like around 5) and mostly only for those themes I want to complete (Trains,Modular and Winter village), and usually if I can get some sort of deal on them (double points, sale (either at LEGO or Amazon), or GWP promo) that may even stop soon as their pricing is really out of hand to me.

@madforLEGO:
Ultimately, they started hiring AFOLs to design their sets, and AFOLs try to design them like they make their MOCs, which is highly detailed. They're never going back to a time when a non-4+ SW set looks like what landed on the shelves in 1999. It's just not going to happen, because if it did, it wouldn't sell.

But that's not the reason I came back to this article. I don't know if anyone else will see it, but I thought people might be amused to see another take on the Balrog from the book:

https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/lord-rings-middle-earth-forest-balrog-1984465756

Note that on the card back, it says the (non-canon) Forest Balrog is only 6' tall, so normal human height.