Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Well I enjoyed this topic a bit more than I thought I might. I might disagree with some of BeAfraid's points and his tone*, but I essentially agree with his general arguments...
- I was a fan of The Hobbit since forever, and only started reading LotR when I heard there was a movie series coming out. When I finally sat there in the cinema I couldn't understand why they had changed so much of the tone and reasons for points of the plot and storyline. Sure there were some nice pictures, as mentioned, but to me it was 'Peter Jackson's film inspired by LotR' right off the bat.
(I do tend to do that 'I-read-the-book-first-and-don't-like-the-movie' thing, though, so when GoT appeared I watched the first season before going near the books. Know what? I still prefer the books, and the 'boring, real-world' description of clothing and armour. On that note, there's another fantasy author who wasn't fond of some of the things people wanted to do with his books.)
- As above, I'm especially sceptical about the old chestnut that 'you need to change things in an adaptation!', 'cos I've never heard any really good reasons for it, if people bother to give reasons at all. I have heard people say that the songs, Tom Bombadil, etc. needed to be cut out, and sometimes heard that it's to keep the movie short. Fair enough, I can agree with the need to edit or truncate things. (though I still feel there's a bit of room for Bombadil. I like that he rubs people up the wrong way, mostly because he's hard to fit in people's D&D style classification system of M-E's cosmogony. Which is almost part of the point.) But I don't think that's quite the same as changing things, even beyond the shape of swords, particularly character and motivation. To wit:
What were the circumstances and reasons for Merry and Pippin joining Frodo and Sam on their journey across the Shire, and beyond?
What was Elrond's attitude to his daughter's betrothal to Aragorn?
When and why did Treebeard decide to attack Isengard?
Where did Faramir intend to take Frodo and Sam at first, and why?
And so on...
Most changes in the movies seemed to come about from Jackson's inability to understand subtlety and to inject cheap drama. Especially apparent after seeing some of his other films. (half-hour brontosaur stampedes, trapeze-swinging tyrannosaurs, and ice-skating giant apes spring to mind) Who said earlier about a cheap B-movie maker, or words to that effect? That's right. Without already-popular classic stories to lean on, his level is somewhere about Braindead or The Frighteners.
- People say that these are the movies that everyone will remember, with iconic imagery. Perhaps. Again, the movies are pretty, but I'm gonna say I struggle to see much that's iconic about them. (That wasn't already in the books, or illustrations by Tolkien and others) Same thing about GW's minis. Also, I agree that remakes with all the unnecessary changes ironed out could become the new standard. As mentioned, the New Line LotR was not the first adaptation. (or inspiration) Christopher wasn't the first Reeves, to represent Superman on-screen. Andrew Garfield took over from Tobey Maguire, who took over from Nicholas Hammond. On that note, who remembers the Captain America film before Chris Evans? And don't forget, there were three movies featuring said ice-skating giant ape, and the biggest to date still isn't the most iconic. (twenty-nine years between the last two - we're about halfway there for the LotR remake, right?)
A lot of comic movies mentioned there. I read a thing about comics recently: before the days of continuity-obsessed nerds, stories were seen as available to be recycled every 5-7 years because readers would move on and the rehash wouldn't ruffle too many feathers. (sounds a bit like GW's faulty thought process, too) The lead-time's a bit longer for movies, but I wonder if - like the cases of these recycled comics, movie remakes, and the BSG example - the people who would oppose an LotR remake in the future would be the handful of 'grumpy obsessives' that book fans are being painted as now, and most folk would be up for a different (better?) take?
*Though people gotta grow a skin and learn the difference between frank advice and personal insult. One of the old chestnuts I learned from forays in the art/sculpting sphere, but a true one.
- - -
On the topic of minis, I agree that most of the human races can be represented by historical minis. I've been eyeing up Footsore's mounted goths myself. As for no great examples of elves, dwarfs and orcs: tell me about it! Sometimes I wonder if old Grenadier or Ral Partha elves might be suitable. I also wonder if the decline of GW's LotR and even GW as a whole might spark off some replacements. I've thought about doing a few myself (covered in bland ol' dark age mail), though perhaps in 15mm. I think BeAfraid's orcs have scared me off the 28mm idea.
I would like to see a quote that is legitimately offensive to anyone here.
A direct quote, in context, of mine that shows some sort of actual offense.
I can already guess that you will look for something where I pointed to people's lack of awareness of specifics of Tolkien, but in an academic setting, that isn't considered offensive to point out a lack in knowledge of a subject to someone who demonstrates that lack, repeatedly,
The subject may not like it, but that is kind of the whole point of the academic life, to remove ignorance from the world.
And when someone repeatedly makes a claim to knowledge they demonstrably do not possess, it is even worse to not point that out if the points in question hinge upon that very knowledge.
My points have been:
• Someone else could do a better job.
• Peter Jackson's designs are NOT Tokien, and thus really aren't LotR (which was written by Tolken, and not Peter Jackson)
• Many of my critics, as I highlighted in their posts, have just come right out and said that they don't like Tolkien's work, it isn't fit for other media (which is an entirely subjective opinion). So why do they then carry on pretending that Jackson's work IS Tolkien, an identity that they themselves just denied.
• Tolkien's different people's are NOT simply historical analogs. Tolkien stated this time-and-time-again, and he even described the various distinctions between then different people's armies (you have to go beyond just the Novels to discover this... But what did I say about just because people are unaware of it doesn't mean that it does not exist). And thus it is possible to develop highly attractive and distinctive models for the different factions that are not at odds with Tolkien's descriptions.
Vermis wrote: Well I enjoyed this topic a bit more than I thought I might. I might disagree with some of BeAfraid's points and his tone*, but I essentially agree with his general arguments...
- I was a fan of The Hobbit since forever, and only started reading LotR when I heard there was a movie series coming out. When I finally sat there in the cinema I couldn't understand why they had changed so much of the tone and reasons for points of the plot and storyline. Sure there were some nice pictures, as mentioned, but to me it was 'Peter Jackson's film inspired by LotR' right off the bat.
(I do tend to do that 'I-read-the-book-first-and-don't-like-the-movie' thing, though, so when GoT appeared I watched the first season before going near the books. Know what? I still prefer the books, and the 'boring, real-world' description of clothing and armour. On that note, there's another fantasy author who wasn't fond of some of the things people wanted to do with his books.)
- As above, I'm especially sceptical about the old chestnut that 'you need to change things in an adaptation!', 'cos I've never heard any really good reasons for it, if people bother to give reasons at all. I have heard people say that the songs, Tom Bombadil, etc. needed to be cut out, and sometimes heard that it's to keep the movie short. Fair enough, I can agree with the need to edit or truncate things. (though I still feel there's a bit of room for Bombadil. I like that he rubs people up the wrong way, mostly because he's hard to fit in people's D&D style classification system of M-E's cosmogony. Which is almost part of the point.) But I don't think that's quite the same as changing things, even beyond the shape of swords, particularly character and motivation. To wit:
What were the circumstances and reasons for Merry and Pippin joining Frodo and Sam on their journey across the Shire, and beyond?
What was Elrond's attitude to his daughter's betrothal to Aragorn?
When and why did Treebeard decide to attack Isengard?
Where did Faramir intend to take Frodo and Sam at first, and why?
And so on...
Most changes in the movies seemed to come about from Jackson's inability to understand subtlety and to inject cheap drama. Especially apparent after seeing some of his other films. (half-hour brontosaur stampedes, trapeze-swinging tyrannosaurs, and ice-skating giant apes spring to mind) Who said earlier about a cheap B-movie maker, or words to that effect? That's right. Without already-popular classic stories to lean on, his level is somewhere about Braindead or The Frighteners.
- People say that these are the movies that everyone will remember, with iconic imagery. Perhaps. Again, the movies are pretty, but I'm gonna say I struggle to see much that's iconic about them. (That wasn't already in the books, or illustrations by Tolkien and others) Same thing about GW's minis. Also, I agree that remakes with all the unnecessary changes ironed out could become the new standard. As mentioned, the New Line LotR was not the first adaptation. (or inspiration) Christopher wasn't the first Reeves, to represent Superman on-screen. Andrew Garfield took over from Tobey Maguire, who took over from Nicholas Hammond. On that note, who remembers the Captain America film before Chris Evans? And don't forget, there were three movies featuring said ice-skating giant ape, and the biggest to date still isn't the most iconic. (twenty-nine years between the last two - we're about halfway there for the LotR remake, right?)
A lot of comic movies mentioned there. I read a thing about comics recently: before the days of continuity-obsessed nerds, stories were seen as available to be recycled every 5-7 years because readers would move on and the rehash wouldn't ruffle too many feathers. (sounds a bit like GW's faulty thought process, too) The lead-time's a bit longer for movies, but I wonder if - like the cases of these recycled comics, movie remakes, and the BSG example - the people who would oppose an LotR remake in the future would be the handful of 'grumpy obsessives' that book fans are being painted as now, and most folk would be up for a different (better?) take?
*Though people gotta grow a skin and learn the difference between frank advice and personal insult. One of the old chestnuts I learned from forays in the art/sculpting sphere, but a true one.
- - -
On the topic of minis, I agree that most of the human races can be represented by historical minis. I've been eyeing up Footsore's mounted goths myself. As for no great examples of elves, dwarfs and orcs: tell me about it! Sometimes I wonder if old Grenadier or Ral Partha elves might be suitable. I also wonder if the decline of GW's LotR and even GW as a whole might spark off some replacements. I've thought about doing a few myself (covered in bland ol' dark age mail), though perhaps in 15mm. I think BeAfraid's orcs have scared me off the 28mm idea.
What's wrong with my Orcs? Seriously???
They are simply hybrids between the older Tom Meier Miniatures and the newer (and I have yet to complete but one of them).
I know there are some confusion involving their weapons (they are to be cast open-handed, and weapons to be added from a selection) - some people were not aware of this, and commented on what looked to be clumsy positioning of the weapons.
And, as I pointed out, only one of them had the surface anatomy done yet, and none have their faces finished (due to needing to retopologize so often with my limited RAM).
On the Ral Partha side, I have mentioned to them that I would be willing to have my old work scan their elves to re-scale them as 28mm - 30mm figures to match Tom Meier's newer stuff (the older Meier Partha stuff in their new Kickstarter is very small compared to Tom Meier's newer stuff, or to even GW's stuff).
The subject may not like it, but that is kind of the whole point of the academic life, to remove ignorance from the world.
Is it? Blimey, I'd better go remind the rest of the department.
I remember when I was doing my MA, and got asked in a seminar group why we might want to be academics. I proudly announced that I liked the idea of contributing the pool of human knowledge. The Professor leading the group looked at me, laughed and said, 'Well I don't know if I've ever done that. Pissed in it perhaps, but there you go'.
Vermis wrote: Well I enjoyed this topic a bit more than I thought I might. I might disagree with some of BeAfraid's points and his tone*, but I essentially agree with his general arguments...
- I was a fan of The Hobbit since forever, and only started reading LotR when I heard there was a movie series coming out. When I finally sat there in the cinema I couldn't understand why they had changed so much of the tone and reasons for points of the plot and storyline. Sure there were some nice pictures, as mentioned, but to me it was 'Peter Jackson's film inspired by LotR' right off the bat.
(I do tend to do that 'I-read-the-book-first-and-don't-like-the-movie' thing, though, so when GoT appeared I watched the first season before going near the books. Know what? I still prefer the books, and the 'boring, real-world' description of clothing and armour. On that note, there's another fantasy author who wasn't fond of some of the things people wanted to do with his books.)
- As above, I'm especially sceptical about the old chestnut that 'you need to change things in an adaptation!', 'cos I've never heard any really good reasons for it, if people bother to give reasons at all. I have heard people say that the songs, Tom Bombadil, etc. needed to be cut out, and sometimes heard that it's to keep the movie short. Fair enough, I can agree with the need to edit or truncate things. (though I still feel there's a bit of room for Bombadil. I like that he rubs people up the wrong way, mostly because he's hard to fit in people's D&D style classification system of M-E's cosmogony. Which is almost part of the point.) But I don't think that's quite the same as changing things, even beyond the shape of swords, particularly character and motivation. To wit:
What were the circumstances and reasons for Merry and Pippin joining Frodo and Sam on their journey across the Shire, and beyond?
What was Elrond's attitude to his daughter's betrothal to Aragorn?
When and why did Treebeard decide to attack Isengard?
Where did Faramir intend to take Frodo and Sam at first, and why?
And so on...
Most changes in the movies seemed to come about from Jackson's inability to understand subtlety and to inject cheap drama. Especially apparent after seeing some of his other films. (half-hour brontosaur stampedes, trapeze-swinging tyrannosaurs, and ice-skating giant apes spring to mind) Who said earlier about a cheap B-movie maker, or words to that effect? That's right. Without already-popular classic stories to lean on, his level is somewhere about Braindead or The Frighteners.
- People say that these are the movies that everyone will remember, with iconic imagery. Perhaps. Again, the movies are pretty, but I'm gonna say I struggle to see much that's iconic about them. (That wasn't already in the books, or illustrations by Tolkien and others) Same thing about GW's minis. Also, I agree that remakes with all the unnecessary changes ironed out could become the new standard. As mentioned, the New Line LotR was not the first adaptation. (or inspiration) Christopher wasn't the first Reeves, to represent Superman on-screen. Andrew Garfield took over from Tobey Maguire, who took over from Nicholas Hammond. On that note, who remembers the Captain America film before Chris Evans? And don't forget, there were three movies featuring said ice-skating giant ape, and the biggest to date still isn't the most iconic. (twenty-nine years between the last two - we're about halfway there for the LotR remake, right?)
A lot of comic movies mentioned there. I read a thing about comics recently: before the days of continuity-obsessed nerds, stories were seen as available to be recycled every 5-7 years because readers would move on and the rehash wouldn't ruffle too many feathers. (sounds a bit like GW's faulty thought process, too) The lead-time's a bit longer for movies, but I wonder if - like the cases of these recycled comics, movie remakes, and the BSG example - the people who would oppose an LotR remake in the future would be the handful of 'grumpy obsessives' that book fans are being painted as now, and most folk would be up for a different (better?) take?
*Though people gotta grow a skin and learn the difference between frank advice and personal insult. One of the old chestnuts I learned from forays in the art/sculpting sphere, but a true one.
- - -
On the topic of minis, I agree that most of the human races can be represented by historical minis. I've been eyeing up Footsore's mounted goths myself. As for no great examples of elves, dwarfs and orcs: tell me about it! Sometimes I wonder if old Grenadier or Ral Partha elves might be suitable. I also wonder if the decline of GW's LotR and even GW as a whole might spark off some replacements. I've thought about doing a few myself (covered in bland ol' dark age mail), though perhaps in 15mm. I think BeAfraid's orcs have scared me off the 28mm idea.
They are simply hybrids between the older Tom Meier Miniatures and the newer (and I have yet to complete but one of them).
Spoiler:
I know there are some confusion involving their weapons (they are to be cast open-handed, and weapons to be added from a selection) - some people were not aware of this, and commented on what looked to be clumsy positioning of the weapons.
And, as I pointed out, only one of them had the surface anatomy done yet, and none have their faces finished (due to needing to retopologize so often with my limited RAM).
On the Ral Partha side, I have mentioned to them that I would be willing to have my old work scan their elves to re-scale them as 28mm - 30mm figures to match Tom Meier's newer stuff (the older Meier Partha stuff in their new Kickstarter is very small compared to Tom Meier's newer stuff, or to even GW's stuff).
MB
For an academic, you sure could work on your citation skills. No need to quote an entire page of text when you're only responding to the very last sentence. Or should we look past that and just be thankful that we have you around to "remove ignorance from the world"?
Sheesh.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/05/02 03:32:06
Vermis wrote: - As above, I'm especially sceptical about the old chestnut that 'you need to change things in an adaptation!', 'cos I've never heard any really good reasons for it, if people bother to give reasons at all. I have heard people say that the songs, Tom Bombadil, etc. needed to be cut out, and sometimes heard that it's to keep the movie short. Fair enough, I can agree with the need to edit or truncate things. (though I still feel there's a bit of room for Bombadil. I like that he rubs people up the wrong way, mostly because he's hard to fit in people's D&D style classification system of M-E's cosmogony. Which is almost part of the point.) But I don't think that's quite the same as changing things, even beyond the shape of swords, particularly character and motivation. To wit:
What were the circumstances and reasons for Merry and Pippin joining Frodo and Sam on their journey across the Shire, and beyond? What was Elrond's attitude to his daughter's betrothal to Aragorn? When and why did Treebeard decide to attack Isengard? Where did Faramir intend to take Frodo and Sam at first, and why? And so on...
Most changes in the movies seemed to come about from Jackson's inability to understand subtlety and to inject cheap drama. Especially apparent after seeing some of his other films. (half-hour brontosaur stampedes, trapeze-swinging tyrannosaurs, and ice-skating giant apes spring to mind) Who said earlier about a cheap B-movie maker, or words to that effect? That's right. Without already-popular classic stories to lean on, his level is somewhere about Braindead or The Frighteners.
I appreciate those gripes, when you alter the motivations of characters from one adaptation to the next it bothers me more than aesthetic variations. But when it comes to the miniatures, we are really only discussing the aesthetics/rules/etc.
It's like comparing a modern retelling of Shakespeare that may have a different aesthetic, but the overall story and character motivations/actions/reactions remain intact to one that may be set in the correct period but butchers the source material to be a completely different story. The latter is more reprehensible to me... but not really applicable when discussing a miniature wargame (at least I don't feel).
BeAfraid wrote: I would like to see a quote that is legitimately offensive to anyone here.
A direct quote, in context, of mine that shows some sort of actual offense.
I will say when I said "people were no more defensive with their posts than you were offensive with yours." I was using the word "offensive" purely as an antonym for "defensive", that means "to attack", not in the connotation of meaning you were personally offending people. My apologies if that was not clear, I thought it was implied by the way I used it.
The things you claim as people being defensive could no more defending than what you said is attacking.
I can already guess that you will look for something where I pointed to people's lack of awareness of specifics of Tolkien, but in an academic setting, that isn't considered offensive to point out a lack in knowledge of a subject to someone who demonstrates that lack, repeatedly,
No, not at all. Pointing out factual information isn't*** what makes people defensive. It's the stuff in between the facts. You said things like...
"GW losing the license to Middle-earth would be the best thing to ever happen to it. "
That's opinion, not factual awareness of Tolkien that you have and other people lack.
"Middle-earth would be better served with a line of miniatures that better fits the aesthetic described and depicted by Tolkien. "
Again, opinion.
"Talk about completely missing the point (not that I am surprised, as most people outside of academia or the film industry itself don't understand the point). "
That is an attacking sentence. I'm surprised that, as an academic, you don't realise that. You aren't expounding some academic knowledge that people are lacking in this sentence, you are just attacking people for what you perceive as a lack of knowledge.
Mysterious Pants brought up a couple as well...
"...not that I am surprised, as most people outside of academia or the film industry itself don't understand the point.
But.... I am likely wasting my time here, as I don't think people are understanding this distinction based upon the replies."
It's really not hard at all to see why people might have gotten a little bit defensive (or at least you perceived them to be defensive, I personally don't think anyone has gotten all that defensive).
***I will admit there are some dark corners of the internet where simply pointing out the facts is enough to get people attacking you. It's why I don't leave comments on youtube videos any more But Dakka isn't really one of those places. If someone is being defensive, there's usually a good logical explanation for it.
I guess hypothetically someone could. Personally I think GW have done a pretty good job (at least up until the Hobbit) and question whether someone *will* do a better job (not *could* they).
• Peter Jackson's designs are NOT Tokien, and thus really aren't LotR (which was written by Tolken, and not Peter Jackson) • Many of my critics, as I highlighted in their posts, have just come right out and said that they don't like Tolkien's work, it isn't fit for other media (which is an entirely subjective opinion). So why do they then carry on pretending that Jackson's work IS Tolkien, an identity that they themselves just denied.
I don't think anyone in this thread is pretending that Jackson's work is Tolkien (maybe I missed it). Though to say it's not LotR is another thing. What is and isn't LotR is more personal opinion than cold hard fact. For better or for worse, PJ's movies bear the title LotR, you can ignore them if you want, but you can't impose that feeling on everyone else.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/05/02 04:34:38
I would rather want to know what is wrong with my orcs at this point.
:(
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also.
If it is not Tolkien's work, then it cannot be LotR.
Tolkien's work includes The Lord of the Rings.
Therefore, if you label something "Not Tolkien's work."
Then you are saying:
It is not The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, Narn í Hîn Hurin, . . . . . - continued list of Tolkien's works
Peter Jackson is not the author of any of Tolkien's works.
He made some movies which share the same names, but which simply share some characteristics with Tolkien's works.
Thus why I use metaphors such as Modanna and Justin Beiber for the Rindannini Pietá, Lady Gaga as the Mona Lisa, or four guys in robes handing out Pizza and Beer in an auditorium as a Catholic Mass.
All of these things share in superficial qualities with the original works.
Modanna and Beiber might be in the same pose, trapped in marble, as Michelangelo's Rondannini Pietá.
Lady Gaga could be wearing a similar wig to the Mona Lisa, in front of a medieval city, similar to DaVinci's Mona Lisa.
And the four guys in an Autitorium could be mimicking a Catholic Mass, right down to the words of the priests and respondents of a Mass and Communion.
But these things would not BEMichelangelo's Romdannini Pietá, DaVnci's Mona Lisa, or the Catholic Mass and Communion.
Do people know what an identity is?
It is when X=Y, therefore Y IS X.
But you can have equivalences that are variances. They only sort-of equate to another value (like 22/7 for π).
And some things are even more distantly equated.
Such as. Four people in a room is much more like one person in a room than it is like 100 people in a room.
Or like a photograph of Kim Kardashian is like the Mona Lisa more than it is like a photograph of a Chimpanzee (even wearing the same thing as Kim Kardashan).
These are objective metrics, even if these is some subjectivity as to the equivalence.
A continuum is still objective, even if it is difficult to pinpoint where the "black" becomes "white" (and vise versa).
MB P.S. Still more interested in what is wrong with my Orcs, though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/02 13:31:42
Lol. Nothing much. That's the problem. They would make any 28mm efforts on my part a bit redundant, and they'd be a hard act to follow.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I appreciate those gripes, when you alter the motivations of characters from one adaptation to the next it bothers me more than aesthetic variations. But when it comes to the miniatures, we are really only discussing the aesthetics/rules/etc.
It's like comparing a modern retelling of Shakespeare that may have a different aesthetic, but the overall story and character motivations/actions/reactions remain intact to one that may be set in the correct period but butchers the source material to be a completely different story. The latter is more reprehensible to me... but not really applicable when discussing a miniature wargame (at least I don't feel).
Aye... I suppose. I only really knew about the dark age influence to LotR when I dug deeper into other writings... but that's the problem. When you know that something in a work of fiction has a defined look, that's kinda the look you'd like to see expressed in the biggest, flashiest, mass-media version. It's like introducing balance to GW rules - it's not going to make much difference to, let alone hurt or trouble anyone who doesn't know or care about it, but it'll appeal to a wider audience that includes people who are looking for that, who might appreciate the wee bit of effort.
Actually, effort? Might be less effort than having the design studio coming up with something new and different to what the original author laid down.
I don't think it's quite the same as setting, say, Titus Andronicus in a weird 20thC Roman Empire, or Romeo and Juliet in an American mafia war. Despite any of PJ's disclaimers of 'inspired by', or whatever, the films are not making any obvious or explicit claim to be a wild new look or interpretation of LotR: the same story (almost) but in a different time and place. As was mentioned, this will be most viewers' first, or only, experience of Middle Earth. With that, regardless of however much shock or outrage the assertion has caused or will cause, it could've been a bit better...
Again, it's like Game of Thrones. Aaall that non-historical clothing and armour than HBO had to churn out, and from what I hear George Martin wasn't happy at all with what they did. In LotR and GoT, things look nice. They make nice minis. But would it have hurt too much to have great designers and effects artists, and then sculptors and mouldmakers, make representations of the original descriptions?
I guess the problem there is that more generic, almost-historical armour is a bit harder to copyright, or trademark, or whatever, when you're marketing merchandise, including tiny plastic versions of it, to the public. GW's recent legal woes and their apparent reactions ("blow up the world!") are an illustration of that. But, y'know, I can't care too much. I'm not GW. I'm the end user, not the manufacturer. I'm one of those who want to use generic, historical minis to at least represent M-E races of Man. If the LotR movies had gone with a look more in keeping with Tolkien's descriptions, I doubt I'd be in the minority.
Heck, over at the Lead Adventure Forum, lots of guys are digging into the Perry historical medieval sets (HYW and WotR[oses]) to kitbash GoT minis and forces. Or should I say AsoIaF minis and forces. There are no minis of the TV series, but they aren't letting that, or the specific look of the series, stop them. I'd be into it to the elbows meself, but I'm just waiting for the Perrys to bring out the HYW French, which have more of the tabards and things I'd like for Starks and other northmen.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/05/02 15:28:17
Lol. Nothing much. That's the problem. They would make any 28mm efforts on my part a bit redundant, and they'd be a hard act to follow.
Oh!
I thought you were saying they sucked in some fashion.
But I understand what you mean about redundancies.
I do not plan on doing anything for which there already exists acceptable alternatives (save for Rohirrim, which I will do to Complement both the Perry's LotR Rohirrim, and the one figure done by Tom Meier).
I plan to do figures that will allow the existing GW stuff to be used as "Late Rohirrim" (from roughly 2750 - 20 4th Age), and the stuff I do will be earlier period Rohirrim, plus to add to the bredth of what is available for the Late Rohirrim (we need more lighter Armored troops, and troops without bows, even strapped to their backs). Come to think of it, four more mounted Archers would also be good for the later period. Two more basic Rohirrim, and two more for the Outriders... And maybe some very lightly armored archers and lancers for scouts.
But those are the only figures I plan to do that atrongly overlap existing lines that appear as described, or which can have the appearance inferred or deduced via existing references (such as language and physical attributes).
What is a shame is that Petr Jackson's Gondorians would be excellent if he had just done away with the plate, and had them in chainmail, maybe with a tabard over it, and a surcoat with the coat of arms (each city is supposed to have their own "Caras Maedhyrm" - City Warriors/Milites, which have their own device). If I could duplicate the shields, taking the Perry's Crusaders and putting the Warriors of Minas Torith heads on them would probably produce a very appropriate figure.
But I want to get away from Jackson's design preferences, and go with something that hints a little more at the Byzantines of the Latin Conquest period (Trezibonds, and such), with just a hint of Anglo-Saxon thrown in to keep it from looking too Oriental (for instance, the Byzantines of that period had largely switched to scimitars, or curved swords, which would not do at all for ANY of the Good Guys).
And I want a bit more variation of Helmets/heads for different periods. The Gondorians I plan to start with would not be the Warof he Rings Period Gondorians, but those of the Post-Kin Strife Era, during the War with the Wainriders.
Ultimately, my plan is to get other decent sculptors to contribute to the effort, such as Tom Meier, by showing them that having a more complete line of figures available for each force is better than having a few assorted figures from a few nationalities.
People are less likely to buy figures for an army that do not mix well with other manufacturers, if a manufacturer has an incomplete line.
And Tom Meier's figures are so distinctive that they stand out like a sore thumb (of great beauty) against other figures used with them.
If I can just get the Orcs released (I had an email from someone at Iron Wind Metals as possibly adding them to their Chaos Wars lines, to supplement the Tom Meier Goblins of old), then I will have enough money to buy a newer Mac with more RAM (and hopefully ZBrush) so that I can work more quickly. This has been my biggest hold-up, is having to re-topologize after every detail pass I do on a miniature to put hard constraints on the mesh flow, so that I can get better detail with a lower polygon count (I max out at about 1.5million polygons, and all of the digital sculptors I have spoken to about miniatures say that I need three to four times that: 4Million - 6Million).
And that will speed the creation of others, and hopefully be able to spur Tom Meier to add to his existing lines (maybe produce some Mordor Orcs, or Uruk-Hai/Man-Orcs), and to COMPLETE THEM (add command groupS - plural, more than one command figure for each army - and a few lighter or support troops). For instance, his current "Great Goblins" need to have unarmored warriors, and armored archers to actually complete the line... And maybe Lesser Orcs - but that is what I have produced for that line.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh!
For 15mm Middle-earth miniatures...
Khurasan Miniatures have their Great Enemy line, which is basically First Age Middle-earth.
I am pretty sure that the owner has commissioned Tom Meier to produce the Elves for that line (or at least some of them).
The line currently only has Orcs and a few other "Bad Guys."
But I am pretty sure that he plans to add to it.
And the Orcs and Goblins he does have for it are beautiful (I don't like the Great Orcs personally, due to some preferences, but I can recognize that they are beautiful, just like I don't care for Boticelli's Venus, but can tell it is a work of remarkable beauty).
This is further evidence that even though depictions might be subjective, there are objective standards to what is and is not appropriate for those depictions,
MB
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/02 14:39:19
Lol. Nothing much. That's the problem. They would make any 28mm efforts on my part a bit redundant, and they'd be a hard act to follow.
I guess the problem there is that more generic, almost-historical armour is a bit harder to copyright, or trademark, or whatever, when you're marketing merchandise, including tiny plastic versions of it, to the public. GW's recent legal woes and their apparent reactions ("blow up the world!") are an illustration of that. But, y'know, I can't care too much. I'm not GW. I'm the end user, not the manufacturer. I'm one of those who want to use generic, historical minis to at least represent M-E races of Man. If the LotR movies had gone with a look more in keeping with Tolkien's descriptions, I doubt I'd be in the minority.
This is and has been another of my points.
Given the rabid fan-boy reactions to Tolkien, we are now seeing post-Hoc Rationalizations by these fans to PJ's movies.
These fans would probably been even more fanatic and happy over the more accurate Dark Ages, yet slightly more generic (although still distinctive, as we see with the Rohirrim, who are appropriately and more accurately styled) designs than they seemingly are with the less accurate, over-the-top divergences from Tolkien's work.
The Cognitive Sciences have shown that people who have a significant investment in an incorrect belief will tend to become even more fanatic about those wrong beliefs the more evidence is shown that those beliefs are wrong (see/Google: The Backfire Effect)
The Backfire Effect, along with a Sunk Cost Fallacy, and simple post-Hoc rationalizations of the significant investments people have made in the GW minis causes them to reject Tolkien's explicit word over Jackson's colorful/fanciful redaction of Tolkien's Middle-earth.
They create a narrative that they "actually prefer Jackson's designs" over any possible other designs (even those they have not seen) simply because they would cause cognitive dissonance in prior behavior (sort of similar to people defending and rationalizing poor behavior, even when they know the behavior to be detrimental).
And if Jackson had stuck more closely to Tolkien's narrative, these people would defend it just as vociferously, and those like myself would be considerably less upset by the alterations than otherwise.
Comparing the Jackson attempts at Tolkien's novels to the productions of Totus Andronicus or Romeo and Juliet set in modern, or anachronistic settings is NOTHING LIKE what Peter Jackson did to Tolkien's work.
Jackson's attempts were produced under the assumption that he would be trying to get as close to Tolkien as possible (he failed, which is not a subjective statement by the metrics I am using, or have stated, as they deal with concrete, specific aberrations from explicit statements about Middle-earth by Tolkien). My typical analogies of Michelangelo, DaVinci, and the Catholic Mass can be referenced here.
People can rationalize calling four guys in black robes handing out pizza and beer in an auditorium a re-intactment of Communion at a Catholic Mass, but they will simply be rationalizations. It requires specifics, essential qualities, most notably a Catholic Priest, and a consecrated Catholic Church or Santuary in order to hold mass (Communion is looser, as it may be delivered outside of consecrated ground).
Appositely, there are essentials to Tolkien's work, without which, it really isn't Tolkien's work. It is something like Tolkien's work, yet is not Tolkien's work.
And the defenders of Jackson have no evidence that a more accurate portrayal of The Lord of the Rings or, especially, The Hobbit would not do as well, because that is currently an unknown set. It is impossible to know with any certainty how well any given set will compare to an unknown.
Heck, over at the Lead Adventure Forum, lots of guys are digging into the Perry historical medieval sets (HYW and WotR[oses]) to kitbash GoT minis and forces. Or should I say AsoIaF minis and forces. There are no minis of the TV series, but they aren't letting that, or the specific look of the series, stop them. I'd be into it to the elbows meself, but I'm just waiting for the Perrys to bring out the HYW French, which have more of the tabards and things I'd like for Starks and other northmen.
This is another one where I was disappointed. I am not much of a fan of GRRM overall, but he could not have been more overtly explicit about the appearance of his world.
He even had a line of official miniatures done (most of which were sculpted by Tom Meier) by Dark Sword Miniatures.
And they are explicitly 100-Year's War in flavor.
And they are evidence that one needn't have bland, generic figures (High Medieval and Renaissance period soldiers were just as uniform and generic as the Dark Ages, just with differences in the materials used) that conform to the explicit, or implicit descriptions by an author of the peoples described in their world. THIS is where subjectivity enters the equation.
Someone can describe soldiers as being:
• Wearing high boots, a long chainmail shirt, with a tall helmet with black wings
• A plate corset, a bassinet helmet with a pleated aventail, and CHAINMAIL sleaves and leggings with plate braces and greaves covering those.
And then come up with an infinite number of subjective depictions of the objective facts about the two soldiers described.
And for GRRM's world... The Perry's HYW models fit nearly perfectly for the world described.
But they do not work for Tolkien's world. We know too much about the descriptions of the world (if not from the novels directly, then from the supplementary notes and writings he did to help describe the world to himself while writing, or in his correspondence with others) to pretend that the HYW period would be an appropriate choice for Middle-earth miniatures.
I cannot figure out WHY people have this attitude that because something is fiction, they can depict that fictional world in any way they wish, and have it make sense.
You might, for your own imaginative efforts, depict the World Of Larry Niven's Known Space as being in a Cave Man setting (after it It's ONLY/JUST fiction).
Yet, if you were to do so, no one else would have a freaking clue what they were seeing without a long, elaborate description of what the hell was going on.
And trying to pretend that this was what Larry Niven had in mind when he wrote the various Known Space Stories would be nothing but deceit (either of oneself, or of others).
Peter Jackson might not have strayed as far as depicting Niven's Known Space as Cave Man stories. But he did stray far enough from the author's intent (which we Can know because Tolkien, and his son, have been kind enough to provide us with pretty explicit accounts of their intent) that it lies much further into the "Grey" of the continuum than it does toward the end which is closest to Tolkien's intent (even if we can never get EXACTLY what Tolkien intended now that he is dead - we can approach it as we might approach a limit).
It would just be nice to have a broader selection of more appropriate miniatures; either proxied historicals, which can work for many of the minor nationalities, or ethnic groups, such as the Hill Peoples of the Second and Third Age in Gondor and Eriador, or the Foradan of Rhovanion in the Second to Third Ages, the Dunlendings - which are a group associated with the Hill People of Rhudaur who migrated to Calenardhon in the early Third Age, or the Easterlings of the First Age, whom Tolkien created as being explicitly Nordic/Norse. They are Vikings (more or less - again, the caveat due to Tolkien stating explicitly that there were no allegorical analogies between historical peoples or nations and the peoples of Middle-earth).
We can use style queues from the historical nations of the earth, but ultimately, the nations of Middle-earth are going to have their own distinctive styles, drawing upon the Dark Ages as those style queues from which we take the various appearances.
I guess people don't really care about accuracy that much? I mean the changes that annoyed me in the movies weren't costume decisions or anything so trivial as that. They were changes to character's motivations and intentions which detracted from the story.
The detail of whether the armour was plate or chain (and I would prefer chainmail Gondorians over the fairly boring platemail) are not important when compared to plot nonsense like the changes to Faramir, the Elves at Helm's Deep, Aragorn rejecting Arwen because Elrond told him to and Frodo sending Sam away (well, the whole "Ring Junkie" schtick with Frodo, blergh). These problems were far more serious and far more annoying to me than whether they got the swords the right shape for the elves or whatever. Visually, I was happy with the movies for the most part.
If someone does a better adaption, I will happily watch it.
To be honest, BeAfraid, it's your characterisation of the people you disagree with that I find difficult to stomach. I know you are trying to communicate clearly and honestly, but what you are clearly and honestly communicating is a snobbish disdain for anyone who does not agree with your position. And you tend towards hyperbolic examples and comparisons which give the impression of disrespect towards the other side.
I balance this with the fact that your posts show a large amount of research and effort and are generally at least a little thought provoking, but I can see where the irritation comes from, too.
Good luck with the Orcs though. If you can make them work, I may well be a customer.
BeAfraid wrote: Talk about completely missing the point (not that I am surprised, as most people outside of academia or the film industry itself don't understand the point).
I did not say that the sculpts produced by GW were not good.
They are fantastic.
But they are not The vision of Tolkien, they are the product almost solely of Peter Jackson.
In fact, while watching the last three of The Hobbit films, for research on our documentary, I noticed that they displayed a disclaimed that in Hollywood (or the Film Industry as a whole) is a Giant Red Flag:
In last two of the films, the disclaimer is:
Inspired by the works of JRR Tolkien.
In the first film, the disclaimer is:
Based upon the works of JRR Tolkien.
In Film Speak, the former is:
"We completely made up a film, using someone else's IP, which has pretty much nothing to do with that IP."
In Film Speak, the latter is:
"We tried to use the IP we claimed as much as possible, but our writers wanted to add their own stuff whenever possible."
When you see a film, such as To Kill a Mockingbird you will see a much more straightforward version of this disclaimer:
"The Film Adaptation of.... X"
There, you will see a very straightforward adaptation of a novel or writer's work (Such as 2001: A Space Oddysey).
You might claim "Realism be Damned," but how many of you would be playing the game if it allowed for the Orcs to shoot Rocket Propelled Grenades at their opponents, or of the Gondorians had tanks, or could leap across 200 meter gaps to get to the other side of the battlefield.
As for GW "always" having a license for Middle-earth.... No.
The Tolkien Estate (with which I speak every now and then about the development of our documentary on the popular depiction of Tolkien's works) has made it very clear that they are working to End Saul Zaentz's, and thus Peter Jackson's association with anything suggestive of Middle-earth.
And considering that GW's current license will expire in 2017, and considering that Christopher Tolkien has left instructions to the Tolkien Estate about Peter Jackson being explicitly prohibited from touching any other Tolkien property (or anyone associated with Weta, or New Line Cinema - the list is exhaustive, and essentially puts a purity test against any new licenses being granted) this means that not only will there be no more movies from Jackson to support the miniature's line, yet the license fee will remain in the many millions of dollars from New Line.... It is doubtful that GW would even want to retain the license.
And then we can bury the Peter Jackson Era of Middle-earth, and move on to producers and creators who are not so eager to eviscerate (Christopher Tolkien's word) Tolkien's creations.
Despite people's protestations, there is such a thing as being closer to what Tolkien intended and NOT being closer to what Tolkien intended (i.e. Being further from what he intended).
People are free to imagine whatever they wish regarding Middle-earth. But this does not mean that what they imagine is what Tolkien imagined it to be (and he left some pretty explicit paintings and descriptions for much of it).
But they are not entitled to their own facts. Facts exist as facts regardless of anyone's desires or imagination. Tolkien, and his estate own the Facts regarding Middle-earth, and when they label something as Not Middle-earth then it isn't Middle-earth (And Peter Jackson's works have been so labeled).
Popular culture might identify them as such. But popular culture doesn't get to vote on what is an isn't, regardless of whether a creation is fiction or not. It is still the creation of a specific person, who left that creation to another to be its guardian and executor. That creator has the right to reject depictions of his creation as having nothing to do with that creation.
But.... I am likely wasting my time here, as I don't think people are understanding this distinction based upon the replies.
MB
I don't think I've seen so many words at one time that I disagree with.
I'll just have to ignore your opinion from now on. On pretty much anything.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
So we are basing communication on brief and incomplete thoughts or explanations for things people seem to misunderstand?
Being ignored by someone expressing no appreciation (or an outright disdain) of depth of thought is hardly upsetting.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I guess people don't really care about accuracy that much? I mean the changes that annoyed me in the movies weren't costume decisions or anything so trivial as that. They were changes to character's motivations and intentions which detracted from the story.
The detail of whether the armour was plate or chain (and I would prefer chainmail Gondorians over the fairly boring platemail) are not important when compared to plot nonsense like the changes to Faramir, the Elves at Helm's Deep, Aragorn rejecting Arwen because Elrond told him to and Frodo sending Sam away (well, the whole "Ring Junkie" schtick with Frodo, blergh). These problems were far more serious and far more annoying to me than whether they got the swords the right shape for the elves or whatever. Visually, I was happy with the movies for the most part.
If someone does a better adaption, I will happily watch it.
To be honest, BeAfraid, it's your characterisation of the people you disagree with that I find difficult to stomach. I know you are trying to communicate clearly and honestly, but what you are clearly and honestly communicating is a snobbish disdain for anyone who does not agree with your position. And you tend towards hyperbolic examples and comparisons which give the impression of disrespect towards the other side.
I balance this with the fact that your posts show a large amount of research and effort and are generally at least a little thought provoking, but I can see where the irritation comes from, too.
Good luck with the Orcs though. If you can make them work, I may well be a customer.
The armor is a minor detail to a gross mischaracterization.
And some of the points people see as minor (the Elve's Swords) are actually fairly major issues of gross mischaracterization.
The mischaracterizations are my whole point, and the appearance chosen to display those characterizations is just a side-show that deals specifically with the miniatures made.
The deviations from plot, and established Middle-earth History are why I have been saying that Jackson's portrayals have little to do with Middle-earth, not the set-dressing (which is exemplary of just poor research, but does not necessarily break canon).
But we don't make miniatures, typically, out of plot points, or deviations from the story (The Galadhrim would still exist, even if we had not seen them show up, and be slaughtered completely, at Helm's Deep). We don't make a miniature out of the mischaracterization of the Watchful Peace, or the motivations of Faramir, or Denethor.
MB
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/03 03:57:03
I really like playing the system. I really like the models and the impression I get from them.
Really wish they had brought out the more armoured Dwarves in line formation as per the last Hobbit film. Pretty epic scene until the pewny elves jumped over them lol.
Luckily I have a good sized collection of Gondor etc. So I will always play the game with my friends.
Yeah, I reckon this game is on its way out, though I can't claim to know much about what's happening with the license and what have you.
With any look though, should this happen, GW will put up the rules for free on their website (I know some of the rules are free, I mean like all the sourcebooks like Kingdoms of Men models etc). It's a great game system, and free rules would encourage some people to pick it up and have a go, and I'd certainly keep playing it if this was the case (I don't actually have any of the rules at the moment...).
I know it's not typical GW behavior, but they did this with the WD-only rules.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/04 21:20:02
Your models are a fine fan-made effort. However if I want something in a Tom Meier style I will purchase Thunderbolt and not some derivative and inferior work.
Your models are a fine fan-made effort. However if I want something in a Tom Meier style I will purchase Thunderbolt and not some derivative and inferior work.
keep practicing though, you show promise.
Good luck getting models that Tom does not make, and never plans on making.
After reading through this thread, and doing my best to tolerate BeAfraid's obvious agenda and arrogance, I figure as a lurker I'd toss out my 2 coppers, as well.
I am an enormous fan of Tolkien's books. Like many, I was introduced to them at a young age, and have enjoyed them again and again over many decades.
I am also an enormous fan of PJ's movies. MASSIVELY enormous fan. I've watched them all multiple times, extended editions, marathon showings of all three back to back, etc. And will continue to do so for years to come.
I've had plenty of arguments with 'purists'. Ultimately, it really comes down to a simple understanding: the movies are works based on/inspired by Tolkien's works. They are not, and were -never meant to be-, word-for-word adaptations of his works.
If you can keep that one simple thing in mind - you really have no grounds at all to be as bent out of shape by the mere mention of Peter Jackson's name as you seem to be.
I personally don't care what Chris Tolkien, or the 'Tolkien Estate' thinks of the movies - I am a thinking person and am capable of forming my -own- opinions. They've made money off their dead relative's works. They, too, understood that PJ was never intending to make a word-for-word adaptation of their ancestor's works. They might be trying to change their tune now, but that's the simple fact of the matter. The movies were -always- going to be 'based on/inspired by', and nothing more. As others have so eloquently explained in this thread, a 'word for word' faithful' adaptation would likely require far more than three films. You'd probably be looking at something more Game of Thrones-ish, a long running TV series or something in order to do the books full justice.
To me, what PJ did was -astounding-, especially given the source material (Fantasy, which up to that point had difficulties in cinema), and given the era in which LotR was written (~50 years prior). PJ got across the -major- themes of Tolkien's works: Good over evil, sacrifice, love, the evolution of mankind, etc. At least -I- got all of that from the movies. What -you- got might be something entirely different.
The movies re-introduced the LotR books to an entire -generation- in a way the Tolkien estate couldn't have ever imagined. Maybe they won't admit it, I have no idea why they wouldn't.
Thankfully, it seems the majority of movie goers completely disagrees with a lot of your assessments. Looking at revenues generated, and a record-setting academy award season following RotK (including Best Director to PJ), the movies were a -mega hit-, no matter what you, or the Tolkien estate thinks of them. I see you mention many times that the Tolkien estate would like to sweep the movies under the carpet, Chris Tolkien would like the 'undo' the movies, etc... but again - that just isn't realistic, at least not in this generation. Ain't gonna happen.
Personally - I absolutely -laugh- when I see purists get all bent up in knots about this subject. I know that might make me an a-hole, but that's ok. I am fine with that. But I -can- differentiate and keep the movies -separate- from the books, where purists can't.
It does get tiring seeing people go on and on about what JRR would or would not have 'liked'. "OMG! JRRT would be rolling in his grave!" Would he? Really? To see his films brought to life ~50 years AFTER the fact in a way that touched -millions- of viewers? I think you, and the Tolkien estate, do JRRT a disservice by pretending to 'know' how he would judge the movies based on their own merits. I worked in a B&N at the time these movies came out. I saw -first hand- the number of kids, especially, who came in looking for the books BECAUSE of the movies, and that was just at my one store. Do you -really- have the nerve to believe JRRT would be pissed about that? Or do you REALLY think he'd be more pissed that Tom Bombadil was (thankfully) omitted from the movies?
I've read about Chris Tolkien's 'issues' with the movies, that PJ ignored the 'beauty' of JRR's works. Really? Did he watch the same movies the rest of us did? From Hobbiton in the beginning, to Mount Doom at the end, the movies are -filled- with beauty, much of which was -painstakingly- created. From the Mines of Moria, to Lothlorien, and all the places before and after... and Rivendell? How could anyone have watched these movies and said, "Meh, it looked plain'? Seriously? No - I submit Chris - and the rest of the Estate - are simply angry about the litigation over revenues and payouts. I assert that it comes down to -money-, as usual. And personally, I have to wonder just how much PJ himself is involved with that?
In the end - purists STILL need to get over themselves. So the movies were not a direct adaptation. It was never meant to be. And there may never be one. Keep on praying for a reboot! As a fan of the books myself, I'll watch it! But that will in no way diminish the love I have for PJs movies in the -slightest-. If a reboot ever occurred and if it was 'more truthful' to the books - GREAT! Again, having a 'more accurate' movie/TV series will not diminish PJ's works. Not to me, and not to millions of other fans, no matter how much you, the Tolkien estate, or any other purist rants about it.
As far as GW's LotR line goes - I think most of us with brain cells realize that the ride for that would last as long as the movies could be milked. LotR has been done. The Hobbit has been done. There isn't a reboot likely in the future, and GW obviously doesn't get to use the Tolkien license for free. The notion that the license would eventually go away is something I think most people knew would eventually happen. Would it be nice for GW to have the license longer? Of course, but the asking price will certainly be too high.
Just my two coppers, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/09 09:37:57
"Wheels within wheels, in a spiral array, a pattern so grand and complex.
Time after time we lose sight of the way, our causes can't see their effects."
I am also an enormous fan of PJ's movies. MASSIVELY enormous fan. I've watched them all multiple times, extended editions, marathon showings of all three back to back, etc. And will continue to do so for years to come.
Would that include when some hypothetical closer and superior movie versions would be released?
I've had plenty of arguments with 'purists'. Ultimately, it really comes down to a simple understanding: the movies are works based on/inspired by Tolkien's works. They are not, and were -never meant to be-, word-for-word adaptations of his works.
If you can keep that one simple thing in mind - you really have no grounds at all to be as bent out of shape by the mere mention of Peter Jackson's name as you seem to be.
Aye, I remember seeing it all over the movie posters.
a 'word for word' faithful' adaptation would likely require far more than three films.
Your simple misunderstanding is that's exactly what you think 'purists' want.
To me, what PJ did was -astounding-, especially given the source material (Fantasy, which up to that point had difficulties in cinema), and given the era in which LotR was written (~50 years prior). PJ got across the -major- themes of Tolkien's works: Good over evil, sacrifice, love, the evolution of mankind, etc. At least -I- got all of that from the movies. What -you- got might be something entirely different.
I got Hobbits almost landing in doggak, people and things who couldn't stop shouting and flailing about even in calm situations, and dwarf-tossing.
Thankfully, it seems the majority of movie goers completely disagrees with a lot of your assessments. Looking at revenues generated, and a record-setting academy award season following RotK (including Best Director to PJ), the movies were a -mega hit-, no matter what you, or the Tolkien estate thinks of them.
So was the Transformers trilogy. No matter what the Tolkien Estate thinks of them.
Personally - I absolutely -laugh- when I see purists get all bent up in knots about this subject. I know that might make me an a-hole, but that's ok. I am fine with that. But I -can- differentiate and keep the movies -separate- from the books, where purists can't.
Oh, don't worry about that. It was painfully obvious to 'purists' that the movies are separate from the books, from the start.
It does get tiring seeing people go on and on about what JRR would or would not have 'liked'. "OMG! JRRT would be rolling in his grave!" Would he? Really? To see his films brought to life ~50 years AFTER the fact in a way that touched -millions- of viewers? I think you, and the Tolkien estate, do JRRT a disservice by pretending to 'know' how he would judge the movies based on their own merits.
Being a Tolkien fan and a booky kind of person, have you read The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien? Man bloody hated people meddling with his stuff and misinterpreting his characters, especially for screen adaptations.
I worked in a B&N at the time these movies came out. I saw -first hand- the number of kids, especially, who came in looking for the books BECAUSE of the movies, and that was just at my one store.
Did they end up reading them? Did they end up buying them?
I've read about Chris Tolkien's 'issues' with the movies, that PJ ignored the 'beauty' of JRR's works. Really? Did he watch the same movies the rest of us did? From Hobbiton in the beginning, to Mount Doom at the end, the movies are -filled- with beauty, much of which was -painstakingly- created. From the Mines of Moria, to Lothlorien, and all the places before and after... and Rivendell? How could anyone have watched these movies and said, "Meh, it looked plain'? Seriously?
Yes, because when I read my copies, little holograms of Hobbiton, Mount Doom, and everything in between leap from the pages. That's exactly the issue.
Keep on praying for a reboot! As a fan of the books myself, I'll watch it! But that will in no way diminish the love I have for PJs movies in the -slightest-. If a reboot ever occurred and if it was 'more truthful' to the books - GREAT! Again, having a 'more accurate' movie/TV series will not diminish PJ's works. Not to me, and not to millions of other fans, no matter how much you, the Tolkien estate, or any other purist rants about it.
I guess that answers my first question. I can imagine you as a Peter Jackson 'purist', clutching your obsolete blu-rays and muttering about the 'real' LotR movies, while millions of other fans hail the new versions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/09 23:18:40
I don't care who ends up with the licence for the minis, so long as they actually produce a model of Thranduil actually ridng his actual god-damned elk - not a bloody horse!
I'm serious, that is my biggest concern. That thing was amazing. It was fabulous. I came out of the cinema and I thought to myself "that will be my first LotR/Hobbit mini - I simply must have it!" And then I went online, and I saw the aforementioned bloody horse. And then I found out that GW have dropped support for this line, and thus won't be rectifying it.
All this talk of Jackson's supposed defilement of Tolkien's work is all well and good (and veering somewhat off-topic), but you guys think you've got it bad? Try being a fan of Weta Workshop's designs and a tabletop enthusiast, and then seeing what they replaced Thranduil's majestic elk with. Now that's real suffering.
GW eviscerated poor Thranduil's ride. ...Not literally - literally, they just replaced it with a horse - but you know what I mean. Those filthy bloody heathens.
Well at this point I assume GW's LotR game is dead. Luckily we generally do small battle company games/scenarios/campaigns in my group sorry we have most of the GWLotR range already barring a few exceptions such as the near mythical Khandish chariots.
As for where it goes in the future? I'd like GW to keep the ruleset alive and available, and also adapt it to other settings. It's clean and simple, though it does lack a bit of depth, it's perfect for quick games or introducing people to the hobby due to the well known Peter Jackson adaptation/inspiration aesthetics. The figures are also simple to paint and assemble and are great for beginners, especially of trying to copy a movie still for inspiration.
If someone wanted to make a purist version or whatever term we want to call it, sure go nuts. I enjoy dark age aesthetics as well. I'm a fan of some of the themes of Middle Earth, though not a huge fan of Tolkien's writing. Similarly I enjoy the aesthetics and themes of Peter Jackson's Fellowship and The Two Towers, even if I dislike the the plot holes and much of the tension removing dialogue prevelant throughout the trilogy, especially in Return of the King. I respect Tolkien's vision even if I'm not his biggest fan, likewise with Peter Jackson.
As long as any potential purist figures are well made, or any potential purist film adaptation looks cool and reflects the themes of the work I'm going to be happy.
It does take the cost of the mini even higher, but if you gotta get an elk and have moderate GS skills then that's your best bet.
Thanks! How brilliant that they even attached a how-to video! That's some pretty great customer service.
I hadn't wanted to attempt a conversion, but with this resource, I might just do that. Still hoping that some company produces a good quality Thrandu-elk, to take the work out of it, but I think I'm covered now if they don't!
My local GW store manager told me the license was up at the end of the year and that he hasn't heard anything relating to GW renewing it. He told me that there had been some major cut backs as the game as a whole isn't making enough money. Hopefully they release a small skirmish rule set in the form of a book or online PDF as it would be a waste to just abandon the rules as for me personally I think that the Lotr/hobbit rule set is the best GW have produced and can be easily adapted to fit any scenario.
andyroo9000 wrote: My local GW store manager told me the license was up at the end of the year and that he hasn't heard anything relating to GW renewing it. He told me that there had been some major cut backs as the game as a whole isn't making enough money. Hopefully they release a small skirmish rule set in the form of a book or online PDF as it would be a waste to just abandon the rules as for me personally I think that the Lotr/hobbit rule set is the best GW have produced and can be easily adapted to fit any scenario.
I would agree with that last comment (That the LotR rules are among the best GW have ever produced).
Aside from a few minor assumptions they make regarding the utility of weapons' length in a skirmish game, the rules are at least designed around skirmish level actions (below unit-level behavior of agents or tokens in the game).
It is similar to other, similar games, such as SAGA, yet with a magic system attached (which tends to be the other flaw, in that magic is not a typical part of Middle-earth, being limited to very rare instances). But the magic system does work well for what it does. And most people tend to think of Fantasy Gaming more in terms of Dungeons and Dragons than anything else, so that is not exactly surprising.
I doubt that their license would expire at the end of the year, though. I doubt that New Line would be asking an arm and a leg for the license considering it is such a minor part of the merchandising of their license for Middle-earth material via Saul Zaendt's license.
But they could surrender the license voluntarily. But doing so would be extremely problematic.
It is far more likely that they will keep the license, but simply begin closing down the product line. This would prevent competitors from buying the license and introducing a competing product line.
I know that Mithril would be all over a License if it was suddenly opened. This has been the only thing preventing Mithril from producing figures usable for armies (which they used to do prior to 2001, when the first movie came out).
But no matter which way the wind blows with the Middle-earth licenses, eventually GWWILL be losing the license, one way or another, when Saul Zaendt's license expires (from which New Line's license is derived, and it is from New Line that GW's license is derived).
So, when Zaent's license expires, it begins a cascade of licenses lost, and reverting to the Tolkien Estate, as I mentioned before.
It is then that gamers will need to worry, as the Tolkien Estate puts more value upon what people derisively call "purists" than it does money. That and the Estate tends to look down upon the whole idea of a "Wargame."
So... It could come down to having no official miniatures for Middle-earth.
Whilst there would be no official figures there are plenty of options for alternative figures, however the downside being they would not match up aesthetically with the GW range for any existing collectors.
I'd be sad if the estate only wanted to cater for purists, again for lack of better term. I don't intend to use the term with derision, although it can seem inflammatory so I don't enjoy using it. I can understand the estate's drive to present only Tolkien's singular vision and why they would shy away from wargames. I think it's a mistake for a variety of reasons, and a tad sad, but it is what it is. As long as they keep the current Cubicle 7 One Ring rpg I'd be happy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/11 20:48:43
Zond wrote: Whilst there would be no official figures there are plenty of options for alternative figures, however the downside being they would not match up aesthetically with the GW range for any existing collectors.
I'd be sad if the estate only wanted to cater for purists, again for lack of better term. I don't intend to use the term with derision, although it can seem inflammatory so I don't enjoy using it. I can understand the estate's drive to present only Tolkien's singular vision and why they would shy away from wargames. I think it's a mistake for a variety of reasons, and a tad sad, but it is what it is. As long as they keep the current Cubicle 7 One Ring rpg I'd be happy.
I know that personally, my own goal is to have the miniatures I am working on "fit" with the GW ones.
Many of them can be salvaged as "Fourth Age" miniatures (Especially Gondor and the Easterlings). Although the Easterlings are a bit of an ambiguity, as the latter Third Age Easterlings give us so little to go upon other than that they were armed with spears and axes, and had "great bows." Tolkien, in his personal writings, now at Marquette University used the words "Legion" and MAYBE "cohort" (the word is somewhat illegible. Tolkien's handwriting is atrocious).
As for the Estate being "anti-Wargame" I can completely understand that attitude. And the whole point of the Estate with regard to Tolkien's work is to maintain the "purity' of it (although there is some debate about the extension of Middle-earth, and whether JRRT intended Christopher to add to the stories, rather than simply acting as a compiler and editor). Tolkien did state in letters to Vhristopher that he hoped that Christopher would continue to write and develop the mythology. But Christopher has so far refused to add anything, for fear that any addition he might make could or would conflict with something that his father had written (even if that conflicting script was eventually rejected by JRRT).
The "anti-Wargame" attitude is really a rather strong anti-war sentiment. And all of the Tolkien's were affected rather negatively by both World Wars. The major theme of the final chapters of The Lord of the Rings are Tolkien's expression of a rather fanatical pacifism, as expressed through Frodo's refusal to even touch a weapon, and the attitudes expressed during The Scouring of the Shire where it is expressed that martial qualities (the Ruffians) cannot withstand a society that rejects violence as a means of its ends.
So.... The Estate tends to view us (people who wish to "re-enact" battles and wars) rather negatively.
I do know that Michael Tolkien's children tend to be much less conservative than Christopher, and much more open to the extension of JRRT's works as well. And it is likely that it will be Michael Tolkien's children who take over the Estate after Christopher dies (although Christopher has left pretty binding instructions for the executors of the Estate that leave little wiggle room).
Eventually, though, Tolkien's works will fall into the Public Domain... At which point we will likely see countless derivatives, interpretations, and outright revisionist renditions of stories set within Middle-earth.
After reading through this thread, and doing my best to tolerate BeAfraid's obvious agenda and arrogance, I figure as a lurker I'd toss out my 2 coppers, as well.
I am an enormous fan of Tolkien's books. Like many, I was introduced to them at a young age, and have enjoyed them again and again over many decades.
I am also an enormous fan of PJ's movies. MASSIVELY enormous fan. I've watched them all multiple times, extended editions, marathon showings of all three back to back, etc. And will continue to do so for years to come.
I've had plenty of arguments with 'purists'. Ultimately, it really comes down to a simple understanding: the movies are works based on/inspired by Tolkien's works. They are not, and were -never meant to be-, word-for-word adaptations of his works.
If you can keep that one simple thing in mind - you really have no grounds at all to be as bent out of shape by the mere mention of Peter Jackson's name as you seem to be.
I personally don't care what Chris Tolkien, or the 'Tolkien Estate' thinks of the movies - I am a thinking person and am capable of forming my -own- opinions. They've made money off their dead relative's works. They, too, understood that PJ was never intending to make a word-for-word adaptation of their ancestor's works. They might be trying to change their tune now, but that's the simple fact of the matter. The movies were -always- going to be 'based on/inspired by', and nothing more. As others have so eloquently explained in this thread, a 'word for word' faithful' adaptation would likely require far more than three films. You'd probably be looking at something more Game of Thrones-ish, a long running TV series or something in order to do the books full justice.
To me, what PJ did was -astounding-, especially given the source material (Fantasy, which up to that point had difficulties in cinema), and given the era in which LotR was written (~50 years prior). PJ got across the -major- themes of Tolkien's works: Good over evil, sacrifice, love, the evolution of mankind, etc. At least -I- got all of that from the movies. What -you- got might be something entirely different.
The movies re-introduced the LotR books to an entire -generation- in a way the Tolkien estate couldn't have ever imagined. Maybe they won't admit it, I have no idea why they wouldn't.
Thankfully, it seems the majority of movie goers completely disagrees with a lot of your assessments. Looking at revenues generated, and a record-setting academy award season following RotK (including Best Director to PJ), the movies were a -mega hit-, no matter what you, or the Tolkien estate thinks of them. I see you mention many times that the Tolkien estate would like to sweep the movies under the carpet, Chris Tolkien would like the 'undo' the movies, etc... but again - that just isn't realistic, at least not in this generation. Ain't gonna happen.
Personally - I absolutely -laugh- when I see purists get all bent up in knots about this subject. I know that might make me an a-hole, but that's ok. I am fine with that. But I -can- differentiate and keep the movies -separate- from the books, where purists can't.
It does get tiring seeing people go on and on about what JRR would or would not have 'liked'. "OMG! JRRT would be rolling in his grave!" Would he? Really? To see his films brought to life ~50 years AFTER the fact in a way that touched -millions- of viewers? I think you, and the Tolkien estate, do JRRT a disservice by pretending to 'know' how he would judge the movies based on their own merits. I worked in a B&N at the time these movies came out. I saw -first hand- the number of kids, especially, who came in looking for the books BECAUSE of the movies, and that was just at my one store. Do you -really- have the nerve to believe JRRT would be pissed about that? Or do you REALLY think he'd be more pissed that Tom Bombadil was (thankfully) omitted from the movies?
I've read about Chris Tolkien's 'issues' with the movies, that PJ ignored the 'beauty' of JRR's works. Really? Did he watch the same movies the rest of us did? From Hobbiton in the beginning, to Mount Doom at the end, the movies are -filled- with beauty, much of which was -painstakingly- created. From the Mines of Moria, to Lothlorien, and all the places before and after... and Rivendell? How could anyone have watched these movies and said, "Meh, it looked plain'? Seriously? No - I submit Chris - and the rest of the Estate - are simply angry about the litigation over revenues and payouts. I assert that it comes down to -money-, as usual. And personally, I have to wonder just how much PJ himself is involved with that?
In the end - purists STILL need to get over themselves. So the movies were not a direct adaptation. It was never meant to be. And there may never be one. Keep on praying for a reboot! As a fan of the books myself, I'll watch it! But that will in no way diminish the love I have for PJs movies in the -slightest-. If a reboot ever occurred and if it was 'more truthful' to the books - GREAT! Again, having a 'more accurate' movie/TV series will not diminish PJ's works. Not to me, and not to millions of other fans, no matter how much you, the Tolkien estate, or any other purist rants about it.
As far as GW's LotR line goes - I think most of us with brain cells realize that the ride for that would last as long as the movies could be milked. LotR has been done. The Hobbit has been done. There isn't a reboot likely in the future, and GW obviously doesn't get to use the Tolkien license for free. The notion that the license would eventually go away is something I think most people knew would eventually happen. Would it be nice for GW to have the license longer? Of course, but the asking price will certainly be too high.
Just my two coppers, though.
Wow!!! Mort you must of been reading my mind, This is my same exact view. Love the books and movies, I re-read the books every two years, Watch the movies over and over that I know all the lines.
I'm the end user, not the manufacturer. I'm one of those who want to use generic, historical minis to at least represent M-E races of Man. If the 
