LEGO® Lord of the Rings was very popular back in 2012 and 2013. Less than 20 sets were released, and their aftermarket prices are formidable. The theme returned two years ago under the LEGO® Icons line with more adult-oriented and expensive playsets, flanked by some LEGO® Brickheadz. Compared to 10316 Rivendell (see our review by Ben Davies), 10333 Barad-dûr (review by Jonas Kramm) and 10354 The Shire (review by Thomas Jenkins), the June 2025 set 10367 Balrog Book Nook feels like a modestly sized, affordable model. Except that modestly sized and affordable in 2025 means 1201 pieces for US$129.99/ £109.99/ 119.99€!
(1)(1)(1)(1)(4).jpg)
Products in this article were gifted by The LEGO Group; the author's opinions are their own.
This article contains affiliate links to LEGO.com; we may get a small commission if you purchase.
10367 Balrog Book Nook
- Release date: 1 June 2025, pre-order available in many countries
- Pieces: 1201
- US$ 129.99 on LEGO.com US – pre-order now
- CA$ 149.99 on LEGO.com Canada – pre-order now
- GB£ 109.99 on LEGO.com UK – pre-order now
- AU$ 199.99 on LEGO.com Australia
- NZ$ 219.99 on LEGO.com New Zealand
- DE€ 119,99 on LEGO.com Deutschland – pre-order now
- NL€ 119,99 on LEGO.com Nederland – pre-order now
- FR€ 119,99 on LEGO.com France – pre-order now
- PLN 539.99 on LEGO.com Polska – pre-order now
- NOK 1649,90 on LEGO.com Norge – pre-order now
- DKK 999.95 on LEGO.com Danmark – pre-order now
Interesting parts
Recolours
.jpeg)
- 4x Tile 1 x 2 with Stud Notch Right in Dark Orange (6553758 | 5092)
- 4x Tile 1 x 2 with Stud Notch Left in Dark Orange (6553754 | 5091)
- 2x Tile 2 x 6 in Dark Orange (6553755 | 69729)
- 4x Plate Special 1 x 2 with Handles on Ends in Reddish Orange (6553756 | 18649)
- Weapon Bladed Claw Spread in Orange (6553753 | 10187) - with 1 extra
- Zipline, 22L with 2 Connectors - Flexible in Orange (6553759 | 27965)
Ziplines are fun pieces, and it's cool to have more on vibrant colours, this time in orange. It's a shame that there isn't an extra piece – occasionally in the past, ziplines have come with an extra.
.jpg)
- 2x Tile 1 x 2 with Stud Notch Right in Light Bluish Gray (6558799 | 5092)
- 2x Tile 1 x 2 with Stud Notch Left in Light Bluish Gray (6558800 | 5091)
- 4x Slope 18° 2 x 1 x 2/3 in Dark Bluish Gray (6533800 | 5404)
- 2x Animal Body Part, Horn (Cattle) in Dark Tan (6553757 | 64847, 67258) - with 1 extra
- 2x Plate Special 1 x 1 with Tooth in Dark Tan (6553752 | 49668)
The dark tan pieces are perfect for ears and moustaches. The grateless cheese slopes are also coming in set 10351 Sherlock Holmes: Book Nook. When I reviewed set 10351, I assumed we'd see them sooner or later in other sets.
New Prints
.jpg)
- Slope Curved 2 x 2 with Stud Notch Right with Balrog Face Half Pattern in Black (6541888)
- Slope Curved 2 x 2 with Stud Notch Left with Balrog Face Half Pattern in Black (6541889)
- Tile 2 x 6 with print in Black (6541887 | 69729)
The details of Balrog's face would be very difficult to build on this scale, so printed pieces feel like a good solution.
Furthermore, there is a quote tile, familiar from adult-oriented LEGO® Star Wars and LEGO® Jurassic Park sets. Did you know that Gandalf never says "You shall not pass" in the original text? Only "You cannot pass", twice.
Rare parts
.jpg)
- 2x Technic Brick Modified 2 x 2 with Ball and Axle Hole, with 6 Holes in Ball in Black (6521191 | 57909b) - in 2 other sets
- Plate Special 1 x 2 with Three Teeth [Tri-Tooth] in Dark Tan (6421619 | 15208) - in 2 other sets
.jpg)
- Foil, Black Wings, Dragon with Dark Bluish Grey Webbing (6483067) - also in 40693 Fell Beast (Review by Ben Davies)
The instructions note that the plastic sheet wings were first designed for the Fell Beast Gift with Purchase released last year. Personally, I think they work better here than on the fell beast, where they do not capture the long, graceful shape of the wings of the fell beasts seen in the film. Balrog wings are questionable to start with, and not seen as clearly in the films – thus their accuracy is less crucial here. Furthermore, the opening function and the scale of the book nook puts some limitations on the size and material of the wings.
Minifigures
Tell me where is Gandalf, for I have desire the speak with him
.jpg)
The only minifigure here is Gandalf, who sports identical prints as the Rivendell and Shire versions but lacks a cape and hat. I don't grieve the lack of a hat, as the classic wizard hat in dark bluish grey has never worked very well on him – it should be sand blue, at least. One minifigure is 5 less than the other June book nook, but honestly this set does not need any more. It's a duel; extra orcs or Fellowship members would feel out of place.
Gandalf's sword Glamdring (6295400 | 66964) is nice, although somewhat huge – as is usual with minifigure accessories. The added jewel on the staff is great, as Gandalf's illuminating staff is an important part of Moria aesthetics.
The model
The Bridge is Near
.jpg)
The design has four pillars, connected by beams on top and bottom, and a bridge between the adversaries.
(1)(1)(1)(1)(1).jpg)
The model opens up. It feels sturdy and can be lifted with one hand.
The pillars use a gradient of dark bluish grey, medium nougat, dark orange and dark tan pieces to emulate a reflection of the balrog's fire. A similar trick was used on 10333 Barad-dûr last year. It looks great, effectively repeating the strong visual of the film.
.jpg)
The balrog is connected to the pillars behind it via LEGO® Technic connectors on the back of its wings. The wings fold nicely when the nook is closed, and the adversary is easy to remove from the set.
There is a layer of flames on both sides, made of trans-orange macaroni tiles and some other parts; they're more stylised than realistic. I like them.
.jpg)
The back of the nook is more finished than on the Sherlock nook. The sides are open, which is natural to the hall of columns, as opposed to the more closed and book-like Sherlock book nook set.
.jpg)
The best view of this set is on Gandalf's eye level, the excellently designed balrog head in focus, and the trans-orange flames dancing all around, illuminating the gradients.
.jpg)
The pillars faithfully recreate the Art Deco-inspired aesthetics of Moria in the film. They're downsized, obviously, but that is not an issue.
.jpg)
When closed, the nook has a powerful, symmetrical visual of the balrog arching over Gandalf…
(1)(1)(1)(1)(3).jpg)
…But the effect is less strong when used as a book nook, as the black balrog effectively disappears in the dark space between the books. In a way, the display potential is the opposite of the Sherlock book nook, which works best within the books. The effect is made worse by my relatively dark green library room wall, but I think that a white wall wouldn't be much better – both are unfitting for Moria.
In short, I think the set needs a light, maybe a warm-hued LED candle with flickering flame. Do not use a real candle. It's a bad idea with books all around!
.jpg)
Removed from its nook, the Durin's Bane is a solid, study action figure ready for play; only the wings are somewhat floppy to enable the folding-in to nook form. I think it's somewhat shorter and stockier than its on-screen counterpart, but this is – once again – understandable as it has to fit inside the book-sized space.
The Peter Jackson balrog is a beast, a satan-esque monster with wings, horns and hooves. It's a classic nerd debate whether Tolkien's balrogs have wings – there certainly is a shadow shaped like two wings, spanning from wall to wall, but on the other hand, most known balrogs die after falling down from things. (If you haven't, I recommend checking out The Great Balrog Slippers Debate on Flying Moose from 1999; it's an important part of Internet history). Interestingly, Tolkien never mentions the horns, although they seem to appear on most balrog depictions – especially post-film ones.
In Tolkien's prose, balrog doesn't talk but roars and exhales sparks from its nostrils; on the other hand, it also wields a counter-spell to deflect Gandalf's shutting-spell. My mental image of balrog is less beast-like than the film version, and definitely more human-shaped than this LEGO version. I think the worst aspect of the Jackson balrog is unfortunately highlighted on this figure, as its hooves are very large and bulky. I understand why it is so; the legs have to be short to fit in the nook, and large feet help posing – just compare it to snowshoed LEGO® BIONICLE® and the large-booted LEGO® Super Heroes figures. Nonetheless, this balrog would need a huge pair of fluffy slippers.
(1)(1)(1)(1)(1).jpg)
Fortunately, the silly feet are balanced by the excellent head with its well-designed horns. And just look at those neck creases – they're super accurate. The glow gradient is repeated here in the small scale, with dark tan teeth reflecting the fiery mouth.
.jpg)
The back shows the LEGO Technic construction of the wing joints. I am confused by the use of Technic Pin Connector Hub with 1 Axle (22961) both in light bluish grey and black, as the grey ones stand out. Maybe this is to make the building easier?
Conclusion
.jpg)
At best, the model makes a great impression; but due to its colours, it's not ideal as a book nook – displaying it between books makes it simply too dark. However, it looks decent when opened – and thus works as a normal display model just as well.
As a parts pack, it has some good recolours, but I won't expect people buying this for them alone. Value of 1201 parts and one minifigure for US$129.99/ £109.99/ 119.99€ seems decent for a licenced set: the finished assembly is not that big, but it has powerful presence once opened.
If you want a LEGO book nook, go for 10351 Sherlock Holmes: Book Nook instead; if you want a balrog, you know what to do. Nonetheless, it's interesting to have two book nook sets revealed at the same time, both based on British classics – but this one being strictly based on film adaptions, which leads to licensing fees (Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain). At the same price, Sherlock has 158 more pieces and 4 more minifigures; but, again, adding minifigures to the Balrog Nook Nook would be pointless, and increasing the size would have been against the book nook requirements.
The only thing I'm really missing is a light-up function, but again, battery-powered light bricks are no good long-term solution. Sometimes adding a non-LEGO component is the best practice.
READ MORE: Double LEGO® Insiders points on 76968 Dinosaur Fossils: Tyrannosaurus rex and LEGO® NINJAGO® sets
Help New Elementary keep publishing articles like this. Become a Patron!
A huge thank you to all our patrons for your support, especially our 'Vibrant Coral' tier: London AFOLs, Antonio Serra, Beyond the Brick, Huw Millington, Dave Schefcik, David and Breda Fennell, Gerald Lasser, Baixo LMmodels, Sue Ann Barber and Trevor Clark, Markus Rollbühler, Elspeth De Montes, Megan Lum, Andy Price, Chuck Hagenbuch, Jf, Wayne R. Tyler, Daniel Church, Lukas Kurth (StoneWars), Timo Luehnen, Chris Wight, Jonathan Breidert, Brick Owl, BrickCats, Erin and Dale and our newest top-tier patron, Thunderdave! You folks are better than inverted cheese slopes.
All text and images are ©2025 New Elementary unless otherwise attributed.
Fantastic review!
ReplyDeletePleasantly surprised that the teeth are Dark Tan/Sand Yellow instead of just Tan/Brick Yellow — it was hard to tell in some of the official set images without other light-colored parts nearby to compare them to.
I love how the set uses varying earth tones to create the impression of the bridge and columns being illuminated by the Balrog's flames, and the new recolors definitely help with that! I imagine we will see the 2x6 Dark Orange tile used with prints or stickers for signage in future sets, and the new Dark Orange and Medium Stone Grey wedge tiles will probably be very useful for brick/stone walkways or for decorative detail on buildings and castles.
You may not be fond of the Balrog's cloven hooves, but I feel like the way they're constructed is quite clever! I will definitely keep that in mind as inspiration for brick-built monsters and creatures in the future.
I agree with the hooves, the technique is quite elegant. I also understand the decision perfectly: being hard to pose due to small feet would have been a bigger issue.
DeleteWhy didn't TLG make Gandalf a person of color? The Sherlock Holmes book nook replaced characters described and depicted consistently as Caucasian with darker skin tones, seems only fitting and celebratory of diversity to do the same here.
ReplyDeleteGandalf is depicted as Caucasian for the same reason that the Balrog has physical wings and the set quotes dialogue not found in Tolkien's book: it's based on a single scene from a specific visual adaptation.
DeleteThe Sherlock Homes Book Nook, however, is based on Doyle's written stories and, in fact, does not contradict the physical descriptions of Irene Adler or John Watson presented in the text. Go dog whistle about diversity elsewhere.
In fact, there is not a single description of any character of color in any of the Sherlock Holmes stories; therefore, your assertion that it "does not contradict the physical description(s)" is patently inaccurate and provably false. Irene Adler, Dr. John Watson, and Professor Moriarty are all characters of educated, successful, high society, and in Victorian London that meant they were by default Caucasian as people of color were relegated primarily to laborers, servants, and dock workers. In every depiction directly taken from the stories or other interpretations stretching the liberties thereof, these characters have always been Caucasian. The fact that Doyle never noted skin color assumes that they were Caucasian and absolutely nothing of note for detective work BECAUSE Sherlock Holmes' power of observation would be a bit faulty if he couldn't describe these people without the glaringly obvious color of their skin. It would be as egregious as making Gandalf Black, Aragorn homosexual, and Frodo a six-foot tall woman.
DeleteThis is not dog whistling, in fact I'm not quite sure how you figure it is, it is pointing out a nonsensical alteration that by its very existence detracts from the original works and the character of Holmes. This does not show diversity, it shows how to damage a wonderful character and brilliant stories with the debatable sensibilities of today forcefully imposed to override the actual history and vision of the original work (for more examples, see The Rings of Power, the new Severus Snape, and any live action version of a Disney classic.)
Please understand Aaron, I like the idea of these sets, I like that this one is true to Jackson's vision/interpretation, I like the Holmes look of Victorian London (could use more "soot" however), I like this depiction of Moria (could use more "decay" however), I also like the different skin colors that TLG comes out with; HOWEVER, just as this LOTR set is true to a vision as you pointed out, the Holmes set should be true to not only the written vision, but every vision since. Can you see the problem TLG created by doing that?
See, your assumption that "educated, successful, high society" even just in Victorian London must inherently mean white is inherently racist. There have almost always been outliers and exceptions to the status quo, with instances of educated black people well before the publication of Holmes' books (including in America, which Adler is explicitly described as originating from). In fact, Adler's status as a highly educated woman in Victorian society is ITSELF an outlier, so it's no large leap to go with a "casting" that makes her an outlier in more ways than one. As for Watson... the only descriptor of his complexion in the books at all is his description in the very first Holmes story as being "brown as a nut", which doesn't sound too dissimilar from his minifigure depiction.
DeleteAnd if that assumption alone weren't racist, your insistence that these depictions "damage" the stories and that today's "sensibilities" (what sensibilities, being open-minded about race?) are "debatable" are flagrantly so. Your gripes about Rings of Power, Snape, etc. are just as racist (there were plenty of changes to the depiction of characters in the previous Tolkien/Potter books that didn't get nearly as much blowback, perhaps because the people making these complaints care more about race than they do about whether Umbridge is as ugly as a toad or whether Snape has a moustache). Reinterpretation of creative works is an inherent part of the nature of adaptation that dates back as far as Shakespeare and beyond, and Holmes' stories have a long history of reinterpretation as well—your idea that these stories are some unimpeachable thing that must hew closely to the long-dead creator's "vision" is arguably more ahistoric than any of the changes in this set are.
It is not racist, it is history. Your myopic lens of the past is applying today's sensibilities to yesterday's facts. That is just how it was whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether you find it racist or not. The stories are a product of their time, and in that time, the approximately 20,000 blacks living in London were of the lower working class OR of the under class. They were of a very high percentage NOT educated, successful, high society, aristocrats, landowners, nor royalty. They worked for them. These are provable facts of the society that made up Victorian London, and they do not care that you feel it to be racist.
DeleteNow, here's the sticky widget: There were exceptions. Don't get too excited because it proves my point. HOLMES' POWERS OF OBSERVATION ARE EXTRAORDINARY. Given the very few exceptions, it MUST be understood that the single distinguishing factor of skin color will stand out from the surrounding society in which they move. Which is the upper class aristocracy. Do you see the problem? If Holmes would see this, then why didn't he see this? Why is the only description of color given to Dr. Watson being as "brown as a nut"? If it is notable there, why isn't it notable elsewhere? Why isn't The Woman described as "brown as a nut" if she was so? One might call the description elementary, as in straight forward and uncomplicated, or even of the most basic kind. Do you not see that the simple, deductive question of, "Which American opera singer are you looking for?" can be answered immediately by, "Oh, the ONLY black one, of course." makes for a very disappointing story? And it paints Holmes as unnecessarily brilliant in fundamental reasoning. Which is how it detracts and damages the stories and characters.
Now, let us cover the nonsense bleeding profusely from that last paragraph. Firstly, Tolkien's Middle Earth does not look like modern London, it couldn't when it was written as it did not exist as such. The showrunners for Rings of Power have stated repeatedly that their intent was to obliterate canon... Wait, sorry. I meant show more diversity for a modern audience. Why? It doesn't help or add, and no one cares when the writing is mind-numbingly insulting (see Galadriel for character destruction.) Secondly, Snape is a thin man with SALLOW skin, which is an ill color used to describe white skinned people. Sallow is not a description used for dark skinned people because it cannot exist in them. Look it up, I'll wait. Additionally, when referring to him as a "Mudblood"... yeah, just sayin' we might hit peak cringe there. I think we can agree that we don't need any more derogatory terms for people of color, even made-up ones. And finally, interpretation is fine, adding modern contrivances is fine (better when it makes sense. "Snow White, whose skin was white as... um. yeah. oops."), and making Irene Adler black is fine; HOWEVER, there is no precedence for it, and, in fact, there is no interpretation until now of it, AND, most importantly, Holmes never noticed it. That is because black opera singers were NOT everywhere, and Irene Adler wasn't one of them.
Andrew, your logic is invalid as it contradicts history, the stories, and the character of Holmes. It is also unsound by discounting Doyle's vision as more flawed than your modern integration of the times and places he portrays in the books. Applying modern sensibilities is unreasonable and unfaithful to the stories. Diversity for diversity's sake is highly debatable as I have shown. Being open-minded about race is a given (even back then), but don't you think that this idea should encompass ALL races including whites? (BTW just as an aside, I happen to be a person of color. Shhh, don't tell.) This is NOT a debate about race, race swapping a 100% consistently white character, or even injecting diversity by force. It is about making Holmes just another shlub like the rest of the detectives by TLG clearly not understanding the stories or his character. I don't care about the race of Irene Adler, I care about the integrity of Sherlock Holmes as he seems to have missed this detail.
DeleteSorry for two comments, text was too long. My apologies as I have a tendency to do that.