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.

A question of taste maybe but am I really the only one who doesn’t particularly want the LOTR and Hobbit miniatures to look like the films? I love the look of the game but I want to submerge myself in Tolkien’s world not Peter Jackson’s. I don’t want a miniature that looks like Orlando Bloom I just want Legolas. But everybody else seems to get upset if the minis don’t look like the actors. And even though there’s much about the films that looks amazing, some bits, especially in The Hobbit- Tauriel, Radagast with his rabbits, need I say more? - that are cringeworthy. I get that GW had to do a deal for the rights with New Line cinema and the miniature series is great but I like it most when GW has done it’s own thing to immerse itself in Tolkien’s world rather than trying to stick as closely as possible to the films. What it comes down to is that I’m a fan of the books more than the films and wonderful as the films are they are not the definitive, final word on what Middle Earth looks like.

How about a poll?

Well, for me it was the main appeal back then and I also follow the "official" color schemes. But I also use Orcs from other producers. So it's important to me but if you want to use alternatives? All power to you. There's a reason I can name at least 5 companies that emerged in the last few years that produce alternative miniatures for middle earth.

Fair enough. The trouble is that as far as I can tell none of those alternative companies’ miniatures are anywhere near s good as GW and Forgeworld. I don’t have a problem with GW following the general aesthetic of the films. But the idea that all the characters need to look like the actors? That I just really do not get.

Jandgalf wrote:
Fair enough. The trouble is that as far as I can tell none of those alternative companies’ miniatures are anywhere near s good as GW and Forgeworld. I don’t have a problem with GW following the general aesthetic of the films. But the idea that all the characters need to look like the actors? That I just really do not get.

It depends, really. The orcs from Wargames Atlantic are superior to the old monoposes from GW that weren't really great even at their time. Hammerin also produces great Arnor and Easterling miniatures that can easily compete with GW, I'd say the details are better compared to GWs plastic. Unreleased miniatures really only works to add variety, they're often rather skinny but also expensive unfortunately.
For human factions it's pretty easy to search for alternatives at historical ranges and there you usually find multipose options.
Davale has very pretty designs, but I haven't seen their Minis in person, yet, same for Medbury.

Concerning actors, well. Due to the scale and restrictions in production I rarely find that the Minis really look like the actors (the new Gandalf is an exception, when I saw it the first time I thought someone photoshopped Ian McKellens face in there ), but their design of course takes the costumes from the movies
And, well, GW pays a lot for the licence to do exactly that
On the other hand you have the Walking Dead Tabletop that doesn't use the series licence, only the novels, and I think that made many people not buy into it because they want their "correct" Carl and Rick.

Games Workshop's license is for the films, not the books in general. That's why they have to keep to the design aesthetics of the films and not go out on their own as that could have caused GW problems with the Tolkien Estate for overstepping the bounds of what their license allowed.

Not entirely true. They're certainly able to go out on their own (see the titled wraiths, Golden King, half trolls etc). The character likenesses are only restricted to actors that portrayed them in the films. So the biggest example of this is Christopher Lee as Saruman and Grima.

With the Scouring of the Shire set, neither Lee or the actor that portrayed Grima (sorry, name escapes me) appeared in those roles as Sharkey and Worm, so the models weren't allowed to have their likeness's. So the models faces were obstructed, Saruman with the hood and Grima with his arm in front of his face to get around that.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:
the actor that portrayed Grima (sorry, name escapes me)

Brad Dourif. He plays a creep in a number of different movies.

One of my favorite things about the Middle-earth game is that there are miniatures of things that only appeared in the books, such as Tom Bombadil, Glorfindel, and Ghan-buri-ghan. That being said, for things that were in the movies, I do like it to match the aesthetic of what was on screen, and that includes having decent likenesses of the actors. Let's face it, we can argue about whether or not the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit movies were faithful to the books in terms of story, but one thing I think everyone can agree on is that the visuals were absolutely spot on! The attention to detail in the props, costumes, and set designs is amazing in those movies (and the casting was at least decent for the most part), and I love to see some of that detail in the miniatures game.

They went their own way when they could. As said, their license is mostly centered around the films and reproducing the visuals from the films. For the few portions of their product line that was not relevant to the films I think they did a great job being faithful to both the books and tying it to the aesthetics that the films encapsulated. My favorite miniatures are their old Arnor line. A great visual that is clearly related to Gondor but also its own unique thing too.

At the very least, I think all of the films(Including the Hobbit) did a 100% perfect job portraying the aesthetics of the setting and everything should use them as a litmus test for what appearances should be. The Tolkien Estate has, so far, kept a very tight grip on the integrity of the setting at least from a visual standpoint so I don't think anybody should really complain about having the visuals of the movies be center stage. After all, the LOTR isn't illustrated, only descriptive. So it is fairly subjective as to what everything "actually" looks like.

At the very least, I consider the aesthetics put forth in the movies to be 100% unmovable canon. The events that occurred/didn't occur are a different matter, but thats not relevant here.

Taurial being a love interest for Kili, yes that was cringy and unnecessary. Here character in general isn't. She could have worked just fine and certainly was fine from a visual standpoint.

Radagast with his rabbit sleigh. ehhhh. I mean, its not necessarily out of place when you consider the whole of Tolkien's work. We never get any solid description of him in any of the books beyond Gandalf saying derisively that he is completely obsessed with animals and plants and thus fairly useless in the grand scheme of things. Are rabbits pulling a sleigh silly? Yes. But so is a bunch of dwarves performing a sing and dance routine while washing and putting away the dishes while miraculously not breaking anything. And if we go back to the Silmarilion, there are straight up vampires and werewolves. And elves who can shapeshift themselves and others at will for no reason other than the plot demands it, and its still perfect in every way. This is a setting where the ultimate super power is Singing!

100% umoveable canon is a bit far. Parts of the Hobbit were illustrated by Tolkien and the rest was up to reader interpretation like any novel.

I think most of the jackson decisions are good, though. I think Rohan should be Horse-Saxons rather than Horse-Vikings, but that's a small difference. I think the Elves shouldn't use curved blades, but again, small difference. Some of the designs for the monsters and so on, I could have gone a different way with.

But I'm not unhappy at all with things looking like the movies, they did a great job with the visuals, much better than I could have done or maybe than any other director could have done. It's just not essential for me.

I don't think it is terribly important, however I wouldn't go the other way and say that they shouldn't make movie specific models like Tauriel etc

I definitely do not agree that the films 100% captured the aesthetic of the books. LOTR comes very close and some of the look of it is absolutely spot on. The Hobbit in a few ways is quite off in my opinion. I certainly never imagined that young dwarves looked just like short people and that they got fatter and leathery as they got older. I'd always imagined their bulk being pretty much set once they reached adulthood, with the possibility of them gaining weight like people. But, okay, Tolkien didn't specify that. He did specify that the "goblins" of the Hobbit were just Orcs. So they should have looked like the Orcs of LOTR not squiggly little things. And the Goblin King looked nothing like an Orc did he? And I still can't forgive him for Tauriel. What an awful, contrived subplot.

And no, Tolkien never specified what Radaghast looked like but I don't think he'd have imagined him been silly would he? GW made a really good Radaghast miniature, much more like I'd imagined him for the LOTR series before Jackson came up with his vision for the character.

All sniping aside though I do love the GW miniatures. Just would prefer to have left the characters' faces looking more neutral for the lead roles.

I frequently use the movie look as a sort of "Default scheme" If I don't have a good idea for how to paint something I'll go with the scheme from the movie, but if I want something different I don't feel bound by it (My Rivendell force is in silver armour with sky-blue trim instead of golden armour and dark blue for example)

No. Too many colour schemes are monochrome and boring in the films.

I prefer spot colours to go along with dark and drab, and I prefer bright colour, and dark colours, and lots of details. Not just a mass of greyscale.

And green Orcs and Goblins of all times.

Be inspired by the colourful designs prevalent through human history.

I don't mind too many of the minis that look like they were from the movies, but I don't want them all to look exactly like that.

I did read the books first years before the movies so I'll always have my own pictures of how things should be, of course.

I find I have more issue with the movie's portrayal of the villains than others, they tend a bit too much towards spiky and "can't you tell we're evil" designs than I prefer, and of course the minis follow that for the most part.

While I love the aesthetic of the films, to me they aren't really canon. Tolkiens world is more out of the 5th or 5th century AD, with a fallen portion of a once greater empire now in ruins, the other half persevering framed against the migrations and movements of peoples, and the decline of the old ways.

I find that with time I've grown to prefer that image over what the movies present.