Not saying I am even interested in playing the Hobit game. But, 85 USD for this, three models. Maybe the roast on the fire is worth it but I don't think so. This is an example (in my opinion) of how GW is pricing themselves out of a game.
I just don't see it that way. What can you purchase from GW and still have money over for the three trolls and a camp fire? A lot. Now, if there was some awesome way the trolls sing while standing around the camp fire, I would drop my cash down right away. However, I can not see buying that, in a game that is never played. When was the last time you saw someone play the LOTR game outside of a GW store? I haven't, never. I guess I will see the hobit game played as often.
I'm curious regarding what kind of timmy wants those trolls. I mean with all the cool action figures out there, why would you want a box of plastic pieces that, once assembled, only have one pose until you break them?
I'm also curious how a kid could find out about these figures as opposed to whatever action figures I'm sure they're making.
Man, when I was a kid, if I had a choice between a plastic dinosaur I had to assemble and paint and never mess with lest I destroy it, or one of those jurassic park battle damaged dino toys, the choice would be easy.
Man, I never wanted to play LotR before, and this certainly does nothing to disuade me from that position.
I'm also curious who wants these things. I mean there are only a handful of LotR players who ever come into the Battle Bunker so it can't be that popular.
It would be interesting to note that most of these models would probably be bought by collectors rather than actual gamers. The LOTR IP is very strong still, and JRR Tolkein's works are lauded the world over; it won't be gamers but the die hard fans that buy into this.
WarOne wrote: It would be interesting to note that most of these models would probably be bought by collectors rather than actual gamers. The LOTR IP is very strong still, and JRR Tolkein's works are lauded the world over; it won't be gamers but the die hard fans that buy into this.
Fully agree with this. People who would not dream of buying a Space Marine or playing "that silly Warhammer game" would probably be interested in snapping this product line up simply because they want all things Tolkein.
After all, if "no-one plays LOTR" then the LOTR bubble in GW's sales must have been created by customers buying the models for collecting and collectors are more likely to pay these eye boggling prices than gamers.
I was interested in the starter until I saw the price of everything. It's sad GW thinks so much about short term gain, I know people wont buying the stuff in mass in a few years but I think they won't be buying it now either.
There are plenty of great LOTR collectibles, and those trolls are not amongst them. You'd be better off collecting the limited edition Happy Meal trolls when they come out. There might be a few people who buy 'all things Tolkein' but there won't be enough of them to significantly effect sales.
Land raider, Valkyrie, most scenery pieces. For a few dollars more, you can get a battalion or army box. You can get into Malifaux, all you need to play, for cheaper than the three trolls.
Man, I never wanted to play LotR before, and this certainly does nothing to disuade me from that position.
I'm also curious who wants these things. I mean there are only a handful of LotR players who ever come into the Battle Bunker so it can't be that popular.
I never see anyone playing Flames of War at my FLGS. No one plays it in the entire world, I suppose.
The majority of gaming is done at home, not at stores or in clubs. It's a very US-centric thing having a lot of gaming done at stores, and even then, I can't see the majority of gamers of the US being store gamers. If they were, GW would be very poor.
Hmmm I always fancied a Rohirim army (love the charge scene in RotK) and have always found the LotR rules system to be fairly neat and tidy but the last price hike made me hesitate as to the direction of the line.
The hobbit pricing is a continuation of this and spells the end to my interest in the franchise (I'll stick with legends of the high seas which uses it).
Certainly while I could understand that GW have probably paid a premium on the licence but the cost of these items is staggering.
I've got money but this is too strong for me and hints of ammore underhand ploy to Gouge on new/inexperienced gamers and a swipe at existing LotR gamers who have stuck with LotRs various iterations.
The good models are nice the evil ones look poor in comparison (this could be an indication of the film aesthetics) but style will not make me want to spend on thes line. The Goblin town terrain caught my eye but at 35 quid for a smallish section of it compares poorly with GWs usually goodish value and quality terrain peices.
Maybe 40k has my sense of scale and consumer perception all screwed up, but $85 sounds pretty good for the Trolls, assuming they're friggin' huge and comprise a significant portion of your army. I mean, if they're the equivalent of Land Raiders or Leman Russ tanks, that price seems great.
Back then you didn't need to sell your left testicle to afford an army.
Hence why they would've been an easier sell than nowadays. Nobody in their right mind will buy these trolls, and I have a feeling this whole hobbit thing is going to be a horrific flop for GW in general. The prices they're setting clearly show they're either idiots, think their product is far more of a "premium" than it really is, or most likely, both.
If I could offer a little nugget of my own experience! I worked for GW years ago, during the first time release of LoTR. The only way I can describe what happened in the store during that time was as absolutely mental. Seriously, the boxed game was flying off the shelves as fast as they could be put out, and there was a constant queue in the store. It was actually a really cool experience despite it being such hard work. But, and I think this is the important point here, I would say probably 95% of those kids that came into the store to buy the box, a boxset or whatever, and never stepped foot into a GW again. Of course some of those initial purchases had some add-on sales (glue, paints etc.) but it was probably quite minimal. Therefore if the boxes did have very small profit margins (and were really loss-leaders, as I've been informed) then the actual amount GW profited from those purchases was very little. In that sense, it makes much more sense to knock up the price a bit, make some margin on the box set (which they will be at 75GBP), and also make some money on the 'golden releases' like the wizard and troll boxsets. The kinds that will get kids tugging at their parent's shirt sleeves, then get dumped on ebay in the summer when they want money for a Wii U.
I think people forget the amount of hype built up around the LoTR releases - they were massive. Undoubtedly the Hobbit is going to make a lot of money for GW, but I don't think these films have the same level of hype surrounding it and so it won't reach those heady heights again. GW will have a 2-3 year window at most, before the bubble bursts again (depending on the success of the movies), perhaps a small rise again when the DVDs are released. They know they need to make the most of it.
When LOTR was released the initial prices on things, especially the plastics, was very good competed to GW prices of the time. It comes as no surprise they flew off the shelves. The Miriam goblins were 24 for £12, the fellowship of nine metals was £25 as were most boxed sets. The Balrog was a bit silly at £40 but some sets like attack at weathertop were great value.
So they changed all that and quickly cranked up the prices. This Hobbyt just is just the end result of this, GW want to get the maximum profit for production and distribution costs given the short life that the Hobbit has. But look at the costs on these things. The white council is £45 for four quite simple looking human sized figures. It's a joke. When Galadriel was first released she was in a pack with Celeborn and her bowl on a plinth for around £10-12. Now a not too dissimilar figure is over £10 in a box with others and made of the gamble that is Finecast. And if these figures are to be sold to collectors I'm sure they won't want the industry equivalent of seconds being sold to them at premium prices.
Personally in thinking they have priced their stuff ahead of the curve as to what people are ultimately prepared to pay for small items, but maybe I'm wrong and people will be just flying out to buy it especially as its Christmas. If it flops though after Christmas GW will be seriously burned by a costly licence and unprofitable line unless they have the humility to drop prices. But they won't, because they are a 'premium brand' and anything contrary to this is unthinkable.
back, way back, trolls (the metal ones) were 25 dollars each
so they, like the river trolls, made them plastic and charge a little more...
would I buy them? hell no, there's enough cheap lotr trolls out there for me to make do, I might have back in the day if they were in a box like this
but for me, its still hobbits all the way
Still didn't see anyone at the FLGS come in and ask "do you have the hobit stuff?" The customers who play the GW games, looked at it, heard the price, and then, put it down. The local store only carries what he has to because GW has a policy that it has to be displayed/carried.
Kroothawk wrote: Yes, all Hobbit products are too expensive.
But keep in mind that these Hobbit trolls are almost Giant sized, not River Troll sized:
Ok i was trying to find a comparison pic for size. Thanks. Considering they are almost the size of a warhammer giant (a side by side would be good) which is $50 us then 85$ us is not too bad a price for 3. Not saying I'd buy it but I think its probably reasonable for someone interested.
Doesn't the heavy price of The Hobbit stuff have to do with the license costing 3 times (or so, im estimating here) as much from Warner Brothers than when it was under New Line? Or something like that? Still over-costed as feth, however....
washout77 wrote: Doesn't the heavy price of The Hobbit stuff have to do with the license costing 3 times (or so, im estimating here) as much from Warner Brothers than when it was under New Line? Or something like that? Still over-costed as feth, however....
Yes, but the thing is that with their last round of LOTR stuff is that whilst the box sets were more expensive, you got often twice as much as a 40k set and more than a Fantasy set (well, the regiment sets that seem to be phased out in favour of 10-man boxes . . .). It evened out. Obviously GW saw the error in their ways and jacked up the prices to the max whilst halving the number of miniatures in the sets. Nice one.
It's totally priced me out of the game. So Games Workshop, I have something to say to you:
The theory is they're gouging Hobbit prices knowing from experience they only have a 3 year window to sell stuff.
ANd that little Timmy will scream until mom and dad buy him the 3 troll action playset with fire and spit.
LotR and Hobbit are clearly not evergreens like Star Wars or Spiderman.
The phrase "little timmy" should be banned from dakka. Apparently every single GW store people go into is full of shreiking kids. Well mine isn't, maybe 10% of sales are to kids with their parents.
And the amount of money a parent is willing to spend on their kid is far lower than the disposable income of someone on even minimum wage. I have friends who spend thirty of fourty pound a week on GW and they only earn minimum wage.
Basically actual grown-ups have a lot more disposable income than children and GW target them accordingly. No need to be bitter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: I like this one the most. "feel like dropping a grand on a game you've never seen?"
If I had the money I would probably be into that. *shrug*
Oh and for £447 i could get a *lot* less than that. I would treasure pretty much everything in that bundle, I'm sure there are lots of other "collectable" things across the nerdscape that would get you less than that.
Though, like the paint set, it's a bit annoying there isn't a cursory discount.
The main box set isn't bad. For £75 you get Gandalf the Grey, Bilbo Baggins, Thorin Oakenshield, the limited edition Radagast the Brown, Oin the Dwarf, Gloin the Dwarf, Nori the Dwarf, Ori the Dwarf, Kili the Dwarf, Fili, the Dwarf, Dwalin the Dwarf, Bombur the Dwarf, Bofur the Dwarf, Bifur the Dwarf, The Goblin King, Grinnah the Goblin, The Goblin Scribe, Goblin Captain, 36 Goblin Warriors, and The Goblin King's platform, plus a rulebook and some dice. And considering goblins are £20 for 30 you can have an alright set-up for under £100.
Ok i was trying to find a comparison pic for size. Thanks. Considering they are almost the size of a warhammer giant (a side by side would be good) which is $50 us then 85$ us is not too bad a price for 3. Not saying I'd buy it but I think its probably reasonable for someone interested.
This is the real trick. GW has you conditioned to think that the plastic warhammer giant is worth 50 bucks!
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That's not even considering that the GW giant has far more parts and components than 3 of the Hobbit giants.
Its just too bad that GW has decided to go another round with the Hobbit.
I too worked for a FLGS when the Lord o/t Rings came out. I ordered the MINIMUM amount and the stuff just sat there.
Ive said it before in a thread about how White Dwarf can be improved. NO ONE in my gaming group or any of my associates circles plays these games.
Its a terrible waste of publishing space and just overall a bad business decision. Fully one third of Dwarfer is devoted to a failed marketing agreement.
Public opinion of the movie is already "iffy" Peter Jackson has been able to milk ONE book into THREE movies!! Give me a break!
As far as pricing is concerned, If its your hobby, deal with it or get a new hobby. The only way to send GW the message about pricing is to NOT PURCHASE THE PRODUCT.
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That and rising costs have forced them to raise prices.
If GW cut their prices by 10%, they would no profit whatsoever. Food for thought.
I can't really make too much of a judgement on the trolls, I'm no fan of the models, but the scale would really be a decider. The price tag is ridiculous, but if the models are "Giant" sized, then their might be some reason for it. I'm no fan of the rule book, I can get the small one in a few weeks once they go up on eBay, if it's even worth it. The Goblins aren't that good, nor is the Goblin king.
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That and rising costs have forced them to raise prices.
If GW cut their prices by 10%, they would no profit whatsoever. Food for thought.
I doubt that massively, cutting 10% would mean I could actually buy the sets, not just on special occasions like Xmas or Birthdays.
FarseerAndyMan wrote: Public opinion of the movie is already "iffy" Peter Jackson has been able to milk ONE book into THREE movies!! Give me a break!
Never understood this mindset. If you liked tolkien story telling why hate that it gets expanded? It just seems to me like people are mad because they can't finish watching the movie as fast as possible.
In regards to the LOTR gaming, I too have never seen or heard of someone playing it. There's certainly many vocal people on the net that say it's alive and well, but I've gone to several FLGS and GW stores, I've never seen someone play it or speak of it. It's like all the LOTR players are holed up in this private town where the only thing you can do is play the game and talk on forums. So naturally they all think the game is widespread. Or something like that.
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That and rising costs have forced them to raise prices.
If GW cut their prices by 10%, they would no profit whatsoever. Food for thought.
You are badly mistaken if you think that GW, or any other company for that matter, can exist with only a 10% profit margin. Food for thought.
I started playing LoTR SBG almost 4 years ago, and I recall getting the 24 units boxed for about 20 euros.
Now I play Warmachine, and the release of the Hobbit got me real excited. I decided to check back with GW, too see if they we're doing a nice intro pack so I might start again with the LoTR wargames.
When I saw the price I was simply amazed. This is not normal at all.
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That and rising costs have forced them to raise prices.
If GW cut their prices by 10%, they would no profit whatsoever. Food for thought.
You are badly mistaken if you think that GW, or any other company for that matter, can exist with only a 10% profit margin. Food for thought.
GW make 10% profit on every £1 of sales. If you reduced the price by 10%, therefore, they would make no profit (edit: actually they'd make £300,000 profit) from selling minatures.
Given that other companies sell at a comparable price level I really don't get the "derp GW should give out models for free it'd make good business sense derp" thing.
The obvious answer to the "bit no one plays it here so noone must play it" and "why does it therefore get WD coverage" is that GW are stumping up a sizeable licensing fee (must be more than LotR?) for it, therefore there must be enough players to supply a significant demand.
I used to enjoy the LOTR section of White Dwarf and I never played it. My favourite article was building the mines of Moria, a huge piece of scenery that stood higher than it was wide.
I don't get the hate. But maybe the problem people have with seeing systems they dont play getting coverage is why they don't try alternative magazines to WD, as these will have a lot of non-war hammer content. Imagine if we went back to the days of bloodbowl, epic and necromunda, where the WD was full of things for all systems, there would be endless moaning from people wanting the magazine to be 40k cover to cover.
Is what I don't understand is why the prices of these figs is taken so personally. Lets face it, GW isn't our friend/family so what they do as a company to make money shouldn't really surprise us at this point. The raise prices, cut stores/employees, cut material costs, and so on. If they release some models that are kinda dumpy looking for more than they should I personally don't care because I simply wont buy them. If someone else wants to cool for them, but I don't see why people seem to get offended by this behavior. It reminds me of when kids were crying because Pluto isn't a planet anymore.
I'm not a LotR fan, but I think GWs Hobbit release is really interesting. Crazy expensive yes, but since I never planned on buying the stuff anyway I don't really mind. To me it's great advertisement for the film.
But like I said in some other Hobbit thread, I do feel sorry for the parents who have to cash up for this.
I really don't get the parent argument. When I was a kid and asked my parents they simply said 'no'. When I was 12 i got my pocket money which was €10 a month. If I wanted to get something I simply had to save. This was about 6 years ago.
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That and rising costs have forced them to raise prices.
If GW cut their prices by 10%, they would no profit whatsoever. Food for thought.
You are badly mistaken if you think that GW, or any other company for that matter, can exist with only a 10% profit margin. Food for thought.
GW make 10% profit on every £1 of sales. If you reduced the price by 10%, therefore, they would make no profit (edit: actually they'd make £300,000 profit) from selling minatures.
Given that other companies sell at a comparable price level I really don't get the "derp GW should give out models for free it'd make good business sense derp" thing.
Your getting mixed up with net and gross here.
They make 10p in the pound AFTER all other costs.
A quick read of the document you link to suggests their gross margin somewhere around 75%
Howard A Treesong wrote: I used to enjoy the LOTR section of White Dwarf and I never played it. My favourite article was building the mines of Moria, a huge piece of scenery that stood higher than it was wide.
I don't get the hate. But maybe the problem people have with seeing systems they dont play getting coverage is why they don't try alternative magazines to WD, as these will have a lot of non-war hammer content. Imagine if we went back to the days of bloodbowl, epic and necromunda, where the WD was full of things for all systems, there would be endless moaning from people wanting the magazine to be 40k cover to cover.
We still play regularly here and the store has plenty of customers buying lotr on a regular basis that we do not manage to get to the store to play. As such, lotr is very much alive fo us here. Just saying.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I used to enjoy the LOTR section of White Dwarf and I never played it. My favourite article was building the mines of Moria, a huge piece of scenery that stood higher than it was wide.
I don't get the hate. But maybe the problem people have with seeing systems they dont play getting coverage is why they don't try alternative magazines to WD, as these will have a lot of non-war hammer content. Imagine if we went back to the days of bloodbowl, epic and necromunda, where the WD was full of things for all systems, there would be endless moaning from people wanting the magazine to be 40k cover to cover.
But those were good games.
And Lord of the Rings isn't?
This is part of the problem. There are people who, in all likelihood have not even tried the game system, continually piling scorn upon the system because it "takes up space" that they feel could be used for their favorite game system.
Those same people are the ones who went out of their way to belittle people who were playing the system in the stores because the players were, again, "taking up space" that they felt could be used for their favorite game system.
martin74 wrote: I just don't see it that way. What can you purchase from GW and still have money over for the three trolls and a camp fire? A lot. Now, if there was some awesome way the trolls sing while standing around the camp fire, I would drop my cash down right away. However, I can not see buying that, in a game that is never played. When was the last time you saw someone play the LOTR game outside of a GW store? I haven't, never. I guess I will see the hobit game played as often.
Don't be so surprised. For a time LOTR was played more than even the traditional Warhammer games back when the movies were out, and after that it became what it is now. When the Hobbit hits I expect it to become that popular once more until 3yrs time when people stop caring anymore.
vleermie wrote: I really don't get the parent argument. When I was a kid and asked my parents they simply said 'no'. When I was 12 i got my pocket money which was €10 a month. If I wanted to get something I simply had to save. This was about 6 years ago.
'Little timmy' is the bs people break out when they want to whine about GW but don't have anything real to whine about.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I used to enjoy the LOTR section of White Dwarf and I never played it. My favourite article was building the mines of Moria, a huge piece of scenery that stood higher than it was wide.
I don't get the hate. But maybe the problem people have with seeing systems they dont play getting coverage is why they don't try alternative magazines to WD, as these will have a lot of non-war hammer content. Imagine if we went back to the days of bloodbowl, epic and necromunda, where the WD was full of things for all systems, there would be endless moaning from people wanting the magazine to be 40k cover to cover.
But those were good games.
And Lord of the Rings isn't?
This is part of the problem. There are people who, in all likelihood have not even tried the game system, continually piling scorn upon the system because it "takes up space" that they feel could be used for their favorite game system.
Those same people are the ones who went out of their way to belittle people who were playing the system in the stores because the players were, again, "taking up space" that they felt could be used for their favorite game system.
I got into LotR this summer for a campaign. It was my first experience with the game and I just didn't find it nearly as much fun as WHF, 40k, or Malifaux (the other wargames I play the most). I grew up loving the books and later the movies, but the game just doesn't do it for me. Does that give me the right to criticize the system?
Testify wrote: GW make 10% profit on every £1 of sales. If you reduced the price by 10%, therefore, they would make no profit (edit: actually they'd make £300,000 profit) from selling minatures.
You don't really believe that, do you?
Tom Kirby alone gets 1-2% of all sales (he just decided to take 383,650 £ dividend, compare that to you supposedly £300,000 profit) , and there are 3 shareholders getting more.
And reducing starter box price from 100€ to say 70€ doesn't mean 30% less revenue.
Same with selling cheaper resin miniatures for cheaper than metal.
Their pricing is crucial for losing about 10% customers and sales per year.
martin74 wrote: I just don't see it that way. What can you purchase from GW and still have money over for the three trolls and a camp fire? A lot. Now, if there was some awesome way the trolls sing while standing around the camp fire, I would drop my cash down right away. However, I can not see buying that, in a game that is never played. When was the last time you saw someone play the LOTR game outside of a GW store? I haven't, never. I guess I will see the hobit game played as often.
Don't be so surprised. For a time LOTR was played more than even the traditional Warhammer games back when the movies were out, and after that it became what it is now. When the Hobbit hits I expect it to become that popular once more until 3yrs time when people stop caring anymore.
Well, even three years ago I never saw a single game of LOTR played anywhere. I have heard rumors of people who own it, however, never seen it played outside of a white dwarf magazine, and we all know those pics are staged. Was at the game store from open then left after a game of 40K and Malifaux. In that four hours, I saw 40K, WH fantasy, Malifaux, WM/H, and even dystopian wars (the ships, not minis) being played. Alot of customers, inand out, asking for merchandise. "Did you get the noise marines in", Has the big WHFAB game started yet, did the new Malifaux stuff come in, Do you have anymore DW Legions?" NOt one time did I hear the word hobit, in a serioius way.
I doubt I will see a serious or casual game of hobit being played. I doubt the products will move off the shelf. The same LOTR merchandise has been collecting dust for a long time now. I am just saying, for a "new" game that if GW wants to be played, it needs to make it at least comprable in price to the other GW stuff.
I came across the goblin town last night and I thought paying $60NZ for Osgiliath, Aegis Defence line was bad. $115NZ for the goblin town seems like a joke. I'm sure people could build better for less.
I don't mind the films being stretched from 2 to 3. I was disappointed so much was left out of LOTR or changed to help make it fit together. Also much rather have Peter Jackson making them than have to watch the horror of another Ralph Bakshi LOTR.
I guess GW also has to be careful on what they release and when. Releasing items not relevant to the film being shown will result in poor sales of the product for those not familiar with the book. I think the main push will have to remain for The Battle of 5 Armies. Maybe the prices are how they are because the idea is to capture playing the film scenes on the table top as opposed to just building massive armies like we do in 40k, but pricing it too high will make people not want to play. For some people its easier to play out things they know, instead of using their imagination to decide an outcome. We know the outcome of the battles in LOTR, so in some cases you set out to have it end the same way but enjoy the ride you take getting there. 40k games have to be played out to decide the outcome, unless you are playing a campaign you know the result to, Horus Heresy, Black Reach, etc and in many ways that is probably why people get disappointed with 40k and the "unbeatable" nature of certain armies. You get too focussed on the winning and less of the fun or story telling side of it.
I think once a game goes over the $120NZ mark for the starter/main game, then it must be worth it. Otherwise its a lot of money down the toilet for piss all entertainment. The Hobbit isn't going to be an easy sell since there already like 4 games on the shelf that tie in and GW's will be the most expensive. For a smart buyer for miniatures, they'll be buying up the last of the LOTR things on discount and building their own Hobbit game.
I played LOTR at home, which may be why you never saw it being played.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I just thought about something . . .
With the metal models, it was easy to assemble. You stick it in a base, maybe glue arms and heads on, bend anything into shape that was out of shape and you're done assembling the model. A five year old could do that!
Finecast is a lot more risky, however - there are bad casts, if the cast is good the weapons or legs or something is sometimes bent and very rarely do you get a cast that's just as good as the metal models. Also, if you don't have clippers, then you could very well break your own model because the material is so soft. I've seen someone do it. Yes, GW are improving, but even so . . .
My point is: as we've said here many times, the market for these products are apparently collectors. But also many children (maybe eight-ish) would look at these models at the local shops and say "hey, that looks pretty cool, I'm going to buy it". Would these children and some collectors as well have time to spend ages cleaning up flash, filling holes with Liquid Green Stuff, soaking the model in hot water so that the material is malleable and then bending things into shape? I highly doubt it. Most people would just want to stick a model into a base and be done with it. In addition, what if the kid/collector gets a bad cast? Would they know that they can phone GW up and tell them that their product sucks so send me a new one? Or if they do know, would they be bothered? Probably not, and they'd just write the company off.
So, in my view, they should either have released the models as metal (as they still do with the majority of Wood Elves) or in plastic.
keisukekun wrote: Considering they are almost the size of a warhammer giant (a side by side would be good) which is $50 us then 85$ us is not too bad a price for 3. Not saying I'd buy it but I think its probably reasonable for someone interested.
Those don't look as big as the Warhammer giant. They look more about Dreadnought/Hellbrute size. Maybe a tad bigger.
Those trolls really don't look good at all. Look at that fire. Is this 1998?
Spoiler:
Maybe GW will lose so much money, their stockholders cash in their shares and the company goes bankrupt. Then, a new GW will arise from the ashes and get back to making Noise Marines that look just like these, except better!
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That and rising costs have forced them to raise prices.
If GW cut their prices by 10%, they would no profit whatsoever. Food for thought.
You are badly mistaken if you think that GW, or any other company for that matter, can exist with only a 10% profit margin. Food for thought.
GW's own financial reports from a couple of years ago said their gross margin on cost of goods was 75%. In other words a £40 model costs £10 to make.
A lot of the money is used up in running the retail chain. At the same time, the retail chain is their main form of marketing.
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That and rising costs have forced them to raise prices.
If GW cut their prices by 10%, they would no profit whatsoever. Food for thought.
You are badly mistaken if you think that GW, or any other company for that matter, can exist with only a 10% profit margin. Food for thought.
GW's own financial reports from a couple of years ago said their gross margin on cost of goods was 75%. In other words a £40 model costs £10 to make.
A lot of the money is used up in running the retail chain. At the same time, the retail chain is their main form of marketing.
from what i remember form my accounts class is that gross doesn't take into consideration the wages etc but net profit does (Gross is the manufacturing and sales costs compared to sales)
Ogryn cost about 69 USD for three, are ancient models, and don't come with a campfire.
These seem proportional to those.
Also, unrelated, but there was a guy in the game store yesterday who actually was running 20 of them. Ogryn, that is. Strange way to invest for retirement if you ask me, though I suppose that if he bought in early enough, even with the typical 50% cost reduction, given that GW prices only go up, you could potentially realize a return on investment given enough years.
Sure when compared to Warhammer prices, the box set seems less expensive. But that doesn't make it a good deal. That just means that GW has done a masterful job over the past decade of convincing folks to pay their outlandish prices.
That and rising costs have forced them to raise prices.
If GW cut their prices by 10%, they would no profit whatsoever. Food for thought.
You are badly mistaken if you think that GW, or any other company for that matter, can exist with only a 10% profit margin. Food for thought.
GW's own financial reports from a couple of years ago said their gross margin on cost of goods was 75%. In other words a £40 model costs £10 to make.
A lot of the money is used up in running the retail chain. At the same time, the retail chain is their main form of marketing.
from what i remember form my accounts class is that gross doesn't take into consideration the wages etc but net profit does (Gross is the manufacturing and sales costs compared to sales)
You are quite correct. Also, as UK companies pay tax on their net profit, you can bet that the FineAccountants will have done everything possible to make that number as low as possible without scaring the investors.
azreal13 wrote:
Your getting mixed up with net and gross here.
They make 10p in the pound AFTER all other costs.
A quick read of the document you link to suggests their gross margin somewhere around 75%
So unless they shut down their entire chain of shops, my point stands, no?
Kroothawk wrote:
You don't really believe that, do you?
Tom Kirby alone gets 1-2% of all sales (he just decided to take 383,650 £ dividend, compare that to you supposedly £300,000 profit) , and there are 3 shareholders getting more.
And reducing starter box price from 100€ to say 70€ doesn't mean 30% less revenue.
Same with selling cheaper resin miniatures for cheaper than metal.
Their pricing is crucial for losing about 10% customers and sales per year.
Dividends are paid out of profits so I don't see your point.
Nobody plays LOTR, nobody will play Hobbit either especially given the outrageous prices. Back in the day you could get a whole 40k battleforce for the price of 3 trolls.
Harriticus wrote: Nobody plays LOTR, nobody will play Hobbit either especially given the outrageous prices. Back in the day you could get a whole 40k battleforce for the price of 3 trolls.
Back in the day you could buy a house for twenty pounds. Don't bother posting price comparisons for "back in the day" without an inflation adjuster.
Harriticus wrote: Nobody plays LOTR, nobody will play Hobbit either especially given the outrageous prices. Back in the day you could get a whole 40k battleforce for the price of 3 trolls.
Back in the day you could buy a house for twenty pounds. Don't bother posting price comparisons for "back in the day" without an inflation adjuster.
Well in this case "back in the day" was like 5 years ago. Not 1920. So.
Kroothawk wrote:
You don't really believe that, do you?
Tom Kirby alone gets 1-2% of all sales (he just decided to take 383,650 £ dividend, compare that to you supposedly £300,000 profit) , and there are 3 shareholders getting more.
And reducing starter box price from 100€ to say 70€ doesn't mean 30% less revenue.
Same with selling cheaper resin miniatures for cheaper than metal.
Their pricing is crucial for losing about 10% customers and sales per year.
Dividends are paid out of profits so I don't see your point.
The point is that GW is paying out profits to shareholders in dividends and doing this by increasing prices. While at the same time their customer base is not growing (by some reports is shrinking).
GW could forgo some of the dividends and keep prices the same (or even lower them) or invest more in advertising, but they aren't and they won't because the board makes too much money from dividends. They make so much money from dividends that most have probably already gotten their investment back and then some. Thus, they can take as much out of the company as they want because even if they drive it into the ground they'll make money all the way down, and the GW IP is still worth enough that if GW has to sell to another company they'll probably still come out ahead of their initial investment without even considering all the dividends they've been taking. The only thing that might be lost is the miniatures game itself if a new owner decides to take the IP in a new direction.
This is the truth that most folks don't realize. Kirby and company have no incentive to not raise prices, even if it shrinks the consumer base for their products. Every economic incentive is for them to keep raising prices and paying out hefty dividends, even if it kills the company.
We pay more, they make more. If less of us buy, we still pay more and they still make more.
If the company or game dies, it doesn't matter to their bottom line because they've already gotten paid big time.
Kroothawk wrote:
You don't really believe that, do you?
Tom Kirby alone gets 1-2% of all sales (he just decided to take 383,650 £ dividend, compare that to you supposedly £300,000 profit) , and there are 3 shareholders getting more.
And reducing starter box price from 100€ to say 70€ doesn't mean 30% less revenue.
Same with selling cheaper resin miniatures for cheaper than metal.
Their pricing is crucial for losing about 10% customers and sales per year.
Dividends are paid out of profits so I don't see your point.
The point is that GW is paying out profits to shareholders in dividends and doing this by increasing prices. While at the same time their customer base is not growing (by some reports is shrinking).
I don't even...
Just go read through my posts. Actually read, don't decide that GW is evil and build your view around that.
Yeah, I don't buy the little timmy bit either since toys are us sells hobbit action figures that don't require assembly or paint... This one's listed at $30.
Kroothawk wrote:
You don't really believe that, do you?
Tom Kirby alone gets 1-2% of all sales (he just decided to take 383,650 £ dividend, compare that to you supposedly £300,000 profit) , and there are 3 shareholders getting more.
And reducing starter box price from 100€ to say 70€ doesn't mean 30% less revenue.
Same with selling cheaper resin miniatures for cheaper than metal.
Their pricing is crucial for losing about 10% customers and sales per year.
Dividends are paid out of profits so I don't see your point.
The point is that GW is paying out profits to shareholders in dividends and doing this by increasing prices. While at the same time their customer base is not growing (by some reports is shrinking).
I don't even...
Just go read through my posts. Actually read, don't decide that GW is evil and build your view around that.
What about those of us who have and realize you know two things about what you're talking about? And Jack just left btw.
You are simplifying a very complex situation with what appears to be a very tenuous grasp of real world economics.
Suffice to say a 10% drop in RRP ~ a 10% drop in profits for many, many reasons.
Good thing that's not what I said. A 10% drop in revenue would wipe out their profits almost completely, unless sales increased enough to make up the gap.
You don't
A) actually think that the profits they report haven't been screwed down to within an inch of their life to minimise tax
Or
B) think that any drop in price would likely as not be offset or even wiped out completely by an increase in sales revenue
Or
C) think that the company wouldn't take action behind the scenes to reduce costs in advance of a price drop
Do you?
Don't forget that GW is also a wholesaler, and wouldn't cut those prices by 10%
Personally, I don't understand why they don't reduce their own store portfolio, invest more in supporting the independent market and using conventional media advertising while simultaneously cutting, if not all prices, then at least a range of products that lower the barrier to entry somewhat, not just the starter sets but also starter army deals or similar.
But hey, I'm just a guy with business qualifications, 7 years in management and 3 years as a company director, what do I know?
You should know that if revenues are 66m and profits are 6m, reducing prices by 10% will wipe out their profits, unless there's a huge upsurge in demand.
Clearly GW know that dropping prices wouldn't compensate for the loss of revenue so they don't do it.
Profits are a percentage of revenue. If revenue goes down, then profits will likely fall by a similar percentage, but not by that amount of money.
Therefore if revenue falls by 5 million, and GW has a net profit of approx 10%, then their profit will likely fall by approx 500k.
Thats a very pared down example, but It won't just lose it off the top like you seem to think it will.
Obviously there is only so much income it can lose before its fixed costs outweigh its income and it makes a loss, but it's way more complex than you think.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Additionally, they sell to the trade at 60% of RRP, and still make money, how does that fit with your theory?
Such high prices for this game's debut to the public gives me the impression GW doesn't have much faith in The Hobbit going the distance and becoming an established core game. Basically squeeze the impulse buyers for all their worth than drop any further support once popularity deceases when the movies end.
I think that they will appeal to collectors and Hobbit fans more than they will gamers, but i might be wrong.
I too have never seen anyone playing LOTR, outside of GW.
I dont really like those figures either, apart from a few goblins maybe, most of them look quite poor to me and very static.
WarOne wrote: It would be interesting to note that most of these models would probably be bought by collectors rather than actual gamers. The LOTR IP is very strong still, and JRR Tolkein's works are lauded the world over; it won't be gamers but the die hard fans that buy into this.
Not entirely true. Hands down I love LOTR and Tolkiens work but I refuse to pay those prices for some plastic items to fill GW coffers
Testify wrote: You should know that if revenues are 66m and profits are 6m, reducing prices by 10% will wipe out their profits, unless there's a huge upsurge in demand.
Clearly GW know that dropping prices wouldn't compensate for the loss of revenue so they don't do it.
You don't even understand basic economics of supply and demand, not to mention being flat wrong in your assertion. Stahp.
1) It's an expensive license.
2) Warner Bros. has price control when it comes to the license.
So, while I see it as completely overpriced, it's not simply a matter of GW saying 'gee, let's screw our customers while we can!'
It's a lucrative license and an expensive one and not at all indicative of GW 'going insane.'
While at the same time their customer base is not growing (by some reports is shrinking).
I've seen this "fact" bandied about quite a lot, was there any concrete proof of this? Not doubting YOU, just the fact. Thanks to anyone who helps me out.
While at the same time their customer base is not growing (by some reports is shrinking).
I've seen this "fact" bandied about quite a lot, was there any concrete proof of this? Not doubting YOU, just the fact. Thanks to anyone who helps me out.
I don't have any of them on me but I am sure I've seen that stated in their yearly/half yearly/quarterly reports. Last year sales dropped something like 10% here in Australia.
While at the same time their customer base is not growing (by some reports is shrinking).
I've seen this "fact" bandied about quite a lot, was there any concrete proof of this? Not doubting YOU, just the fact. Thanks to anyone who helps me out.
I don't have any of them on me but I am sure I've seen that stated in their yearly/half yearly/quarterly reports. Last year sales dropped something like 10% here in Australia.
The problem with those numbers is it's still an assumption that the customer base is shrinking. It's just as likely that it's growing but people are buying a lot less.
All those numbers prove is their sales are shrinking, not customer base.
As to the "customer base shrinking" if I recall it was in one of the reports. I don't have the link, and I'm willing to be proven wrong, but until then, I'm operating on what I recall.
Loki may be right, but if so, I don't believe it changes my overall point. Whether customer base, or just sales customer are shrinking,...
sales are still shrinking, the prices are still going up and shareholders are still taking huge dividends.
This is not GW hate, this is simply the facts as GW has told us in their reports and in their prices.
I've yet to hear a purswasive argument that shows that this is good business practice or -if in continues- financially sustainable.
I have seen people play LOTR quite a few times. In my gaming area in North Carolina I see more LOTR than WHFB. It's still a rare sighting and every time I see someone playing it I do a double take but it does happen.
Last data I heard was that 40K outsells WHFB and LotR (combined) 4-1, and that WHFB outsells LotR 2-1 (though at the peak of the trilogy's popularity that last number probably reversed).
Back then you didn't need to sell your left testicle to afford an army.
Hence why they would've been an easier sell than nowadays. Nobody in their right mind will buy these trolls, and I have a feeling this whole hobbit thing is going to be a horrific flop for GW in general. The prices they're setting clearly show they're either idiots, think their product is far more of a "premium" than it really is, or most likely, both.
Where are they buying testicles and what is the going rate?
BronzeJon wrote: LotR is much more popular than WHFB and WH40k in europe and the UK guys, remember that.
Really? My evidence was anecdotal but, at the time the LotR game came out and for a year or so afterwards, I was a regular at a store in the UK. I never once saw a sale of a LotR game box, or a LotR game being played aside from an intro game. I have never met anyone who plays the game.
LotR books and movies are definately more popular, but of how much interest is that? What is important to us is the GAME and WH is by a very large margin more wide spread than LotR
BronzeJon wrote: LotR is much more popular than WHFB and WH40k in europe and the UK guys, remember that.
I've never seen this game being played in the UK. Either in the shop or at warhammer world...I'm not saying people don't play it, but I'd be amazed if this were true.
Everytime I've been to Warhammer World the majority of people were playing 40k (Unless it's an official event)
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: What about Warmachine/Hordes numbers compared to WHFB? I'd be fascinated to know them.
Last I heard from a retailer survey Warmachine had overtaken Fantasy, but Hordes was still lagging behind it. 40k was still far in the lead. For awhile PP was heavily outselling GW at the FLGS here, but I heard just yesterday that the PP sales have dropped off recently and that GW is now back in the top spot locally.
BronzeJon wrote: LotR is much more popular than WHFB and WH40k in europe and the UK guys, remember that.
And besides, collectors will go apeshit over all of it.
What? Nice generalisation. I've never heard of LOTR being played anywhere in Polish shops, no tournaments. And 40k and FB do have a yearly international event going on.
BronzeJon wrote: LotR is much more popular than WHFB and WH40k in europe and the UK guys, remember that.
And besides, collectors will go apeshit over all of it.
You can scratch another country from your list of "countries where LotR is more popular", because I think in the years since the last LotR movie I think I saw 1 game of LotR being played...
I have a sizable collection of LotR (I got into the hobby with those magazines that they had) but have only played 1 proper game of it (games with my 13 year old friends at home and with a loose grasp of the rules doesn't count).
The way I see it here its WH40K>WHF>LOTR. I havent seen a game of LOTR played at any store I ever went, but I might just missed that or people play at home or small clubs. Lots of people prefer to play at home. Their only reason for ever going to stores is that there are not enough gamers around due to the fact that GW stuff were carried by limited stores, that marked up the already high prices and most kids simply cannot afford a serious army. So serious gamers are not easy to find, but once found its more likely to evolve to friends that play at each others house.
Here the LOTR franchise is still strong and I might say that its much more popular than the iconic Star Wars one. Some years ago DeAgostini had some LOTR collecting magazine which destributed GWLOTR minis and rule sets. Due to the LOTR frenzy many people got them without being gamers. You see there is a very strong rock and metal community in Greece, so most young people were familiar with Tolkien's work way before the movie. It was something like requirement to know your Tolkien if you wanted to be a serious metalhead
Now about the Hobbit thing. I think that everybody expects that the Hobbit Trillogy will flop. They took a little naive story, which actually IS a children's book and streched it to become a 3 movies saga. Its just not going to work. There is not enough original material. That means that they will have to add material just for the sake of adding. The purists will hate it. They even hate LOTR which imo was a very honest approach to the epic and I dont think that it could be better as a whole. The rest fans will be amazed for a short time due to the effects and artwork and then will drop it. I think the whole industry knows it thats why they marked up so high the TM rights. GW tries to get the most out of a very limited time window. You can understand this just by looking at the products. They seem made in haste. Especially the Goblin Town is a mockery at the face of customer base. I mean anyone can do much better with 10 euros worth of balsa wood and glue....
Something worth noting is that the "core" Lord of the Rings stuff from "Fellowship" to "Return of the King" was available in a lot more places than GW products normally are. And not just at game shops.
It was available at K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Borders, and Barnes and Noble here in the US. None of those are places where one would think "Hey, maybe I'll find some Games Workshop product!" there.
Not saying I am even interested in playing the Hobit game. But, 85 USD for this, three models. Maybe the roast on the fire is worth it but I don't think so. This is an example (in my opinion) of how GW is pricing themselves out of a game.
Your thoughts.
People will definately pay it, I just checked my local high street store that is a supplier of GW and they have sold all of their Hobbit stock that they put out on thursday.
This is a store in quite a poor area and i would not have thought that anyone there would be willing to part with so much cash for figures, shows how much i know.
Eilif wrote: As to the "customer base shrinking" if I recall it was in one of the reports. I don't have the link, and I'm willing to be proven wrong, but until then, I'm operating on what I recall.
Loki may be right, but if so, I don't believe it changes my overall point. Whether customer base, or just sales customer are shrinking,...
sales are still shrinking, the prices are still going up and shareholders are still taking huge dividends.
This is not GW hate, this is simply the facts as GW has told us in their reports and in their prices.
I've yet to hear a purswasive argument that shows that this is good business practice or -if in continues- financially sustainable.
How about this for a persuasive argument (and I’m in no way saying that this is correct, just that it is a persuasive argument for the drop in sales)
Taking that we know that sales have gone down but presuming that they number of new players is consistent with the number of players who drop out (i.e. the customer base is remaining steady)
5 years ago GW customers spent 10% more per year, and as such got all their armies completed in 3 years (this is a made up example) now, due to buying less, they complete their armies in 4 years. GW still make the same amount per year (this is proven, infact profits are going up) but can “cash in” on the customer for 4 years as opposed to 3.
So in that situation the increased price is actually a more sustainable business practise.
Eilif wrote: As to the "customer base shrinking" if I recall it was in one of the reports. I don't have the link, and I'm willing to be proven wrong, but until then, I'm operating on what I recall.
Loki may be right, but if so, I don't believe it changes my overall point. Whether customer base, or just sales customer are shrinking,...
sales are still shrinking, the prices are still going up and shareholders are still taking huge dividends.
This is not GW hate, this is simply the facts as GW has told us in their reports and in their prices.
I've yet to hear a purswasive argument that shows that this is good business practice or -if in continues- financially sustainable.
How about this for a persuasive argument (and I’m in no way saying that this is correct, just that it is a persuasive argument for the drop in sales)
Taking that we know that sales have gone down but presuming that they number of new players is consistent with the number of players who drop out (i.e. the customer base is remaining steady)
5 years ago GW customers spent 10% more per year, and as such got all their armies completed in 3 years (this is a made up example) now, due to buying less, they complete their armies in 4 years. GW still make the same amount per year (this is proven, infact profits are going up) but can “cash in” on the customer for 4 years as opposed to 3.
So in that situation the increased price is actually a more sustainable business practise.
You have some good ideas, but the two assumptions that
presuming that they number of new players is consistent with the number of players who drop out and
can “cash in” on the customer for 4 years as opposed to 3 don't have enough evidence yet.
I don't think there's enough proof that folks are sticking around longer or buying the same over time. Just that those who do stick around are paying more.
It may be confidential, but I'd like to see numbers showing if the number of sku's sold has changed over the past 10 years.
Eilif wrote: As to the "customer base shrinking" if I recall it was in one of the reports. I don't have the link, and I'm willing to be proven wrong, but until then, I'm operating on what I recall.
Loki may be right, but if so, I don't believe it changes my overall point. Whether customer base, or just sales customer are shrinking,...
sales are still shrinking, the prices are still going up and shareholders are still taking huge dividends.
This is not GW hate, this is simply the facts as GW has told us in their reports and in their prices.
I've yet to hear a purswasive argument that shows that this is good business practice or -if in continues- financially sustainable.
How about this for a persuasive argument (and I’m in no way saying that this is correct, just that it is a persuasive argument for the drop in sales)
Taking that we know that sales have gone down but presuming that they number of new players is consistent with the number of players who drop out (i.e. the customer base is remaining steady)
5 years ago GW customers spent 10% more per year, and as such got all their armies completed in 3 years (this is a made up example) now, due to buying less, they complete their armies in 4 years. GW still make the same amount per year (this is proven, infact profits are going up) but can “cash in” on the customer for 4 years as opposed to 3.
So in that situation the increased price is actually a more sustainable business practise.
You have some good ideas, but the two assumptions that
presuming that they number of new players is consistent with the number of players who drop out and
can “cash in” on the customer for 4 years as opposed to 3 don't have enough evidence yet.
I don't think there's enough proof that folks are sticking around longer or buying the same over time. Just that those who do stick around are paying more.
It may be confidential, but I'd like to see numbers showing if the number of sku's sold has changed over the past 10 years.
True, hence why I said at the start that it is just an argument, and that I cannot prove it true - I was just wanting to point how how it can be a sustainable business practise.
However - it could also be said that we do not know that the GW customer base is shrinking either, I doubt even GW know the exact number of cusomers they have now compared to 5 years ago - they only real proof/information anyone has is the amount of sales, which we know to be down 10%. However, since prices keeping going up, and profits also keep going up, that would imply that the customer base is staying relatively similar (as a falling customer base would have rising prices and a flat profit after the first year of increases) or at the very least the increase in profits is making only a small decrease in the customer base. Though again, this is just speculation and I do not know for a fact.
I will agree the price is a little high, but the price for most character minitures is around 20.00 USD. Seeing that they're HUGE, and the Hobbit is a brand new line with I assume to be expensive licensing, $80.00 isn't ridiculous. Would I get them? Probably not.
Regarding the trilogy of movies (which is OT so I'l be brief) purists will likely be pissed. But if they took creative license and made GOOD MOVIES (here's a novel idea) then the general public will be happy and they'll be commercially viable.
Can we entertain a thought? Just as a "what if?" I almost imagine this being the run-up to GW's property being purchased by something bigger such as Hasbro, in the long run. If figures are not consistent, investment groups are not going to bother and the value of the shares could not reflect the potential of the IP. I certainly never thought, at the time, that game companies such as Fasa, TSR, White Wolf or Wizards of the Coast could be gobbled up so quickly.
I doubt it, I think that GW is a large enough gorilla to avoid being eaten up by Hasbro. If Hasbro wanted them, they'd probably already have them as well. I dread to think what would happen should GW be eaten by a company like that.
Auxellion wrote: Isn't the White Coucil $75 for 4 Figure sized Finecast models? lol
Even so, I don't think thats too unreasonable. 4 Characters@ 18 or so each. Like I said earlier, most characters, especially fine cast are around 15-25 each
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: I doubt it, I think that GW is a large enough gorilla to avoid being eaten up by Hasbro. If Hasbro wanted them, they'd probably already have them as well. I dread to think what would happen should GW be eaten by a company like that.
It would quite obviously mean a Michael Bay movie starring Shia Lebouf as Marneus Calgar and Chris Tucker as Captain Cato Sicarius, his comic relief second in command with vaguely racial overtones.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: I doubt it, I think that GW is a large enough gorilla to avoid being eaten up by Hasbro. If Hasbro wanted them, they'd probably already have them as well. I dread to think what would happen should GW be eaten by a company like that.
It would quite obviously mean a Michael Bay movie starring Shia Lebouf as Marneus Calgar and Chris Tucker as Captain Cato Sicarius, his comic relief second in command with vaguely racial overtones.
Good answer. The sad thing is that your prediction is almost plausible.
The thing that gets me about the Trolls isn't the price, it's the massive scale difference with the LOTR trolls. I would have thought Will, Bert and Tom would have been closer in size to a cave troll, but they're waaaaay bigger. Also not wild about the huge stylistic differences between the goblins and the previous moria goblins, which while monopose are really nice.
Da Boss wrote: The thing that gets me about the Trolls isn't the price, it's the massive scale difference with the LOTR trolls. I would have thought Will, Bert and Tom would have been closer in size to a cave troll, but they're waaaaay bigger. Also not wild about the huge stylistic differences between the goblins and the previous moria goblins, which while monopose are really nice.
To be fair, Misty Mountains goblins are completely different from Moria Goblins. Different tribe and breed, and I guess they're different in the film as well.
Auxellion wrote: Isn't the White Coucil $75 for 4 Figure sized Finecast models? lol
Even so, I don't think thats too unreasonable. 4 Characters@ 18 or so each. Like I said earlier, most characters, especially fine cast are around 15-25 each
It is completely unreasonable.
Because it follows the trend estabilished by earlier releases does not make it reasonably priced. Characters should not cost 25 USD.
Auxellion wrote: Isn't the White Coucil $75 for 4 Figure sized Finecast models? lol
Even so, I don't think thats too unreasonable. 4 Characters@ 18 or so each. Like I said earlier, most characters, especially fine cast are around 15-25 each
Im not one to moan about the prices, but they are definitely too steep in my eyes, I reckon a figure should be about 12-15 tops.. you certainly shouldn't be charging over 60 bucks for those.. as has been said, maybe the licence costs them a gak load or something, because this line of LOTR stuff seems to be at the head of an already pretty steep curve.
Like, DV was good value at $89... how can they shift that at a profit, but then sell 4 lone figures for almost the same price? It does seem a tad high, and as I said, considering boozing is my number one hobby, Im very loathe to moan about GW prices when you get literally decades of use out of a mini.
Testify wrote: 75 divided by 4 is not 25, it's 18.5. That's about £11. I regard that as reasonable for a single highly-detailed model.
If you don't, don't buy it. If we all made a post every time we decided *not* to do something, dakka would be a mess.
£11 is a lot for a single piece human sized figure. There nothing particularly complex, they are fairly average figures. £11 is well above the prices are for such things from other manufacturers. Were they not LOTRGW figures they would be much less in most ranges, fantasy figures such as these wouldn't get a second look at these prices from most companies. Some of the high cost is due to the cost if the licence, but a lot is due to GW squeezing for as much as they think the market can bear. You're paying for the Hobbit and GW brands, not because the figures are particularly outstanding.
Testify wrote: 75 divided by 4 is not 25, it's 18.5. That's about £11. I regard that as reasonable for a single highly-detailed model.
If you don't, don't buy it. If we all made a post every time we decided *not* to do something, dakka would be a mess.
£11 is a lot for a single piece human sized figure. There nothing particularly complex, they are fairly average figures. £11 is well above the prices are for such things from other manufacturers. Were they not LOTRGW figures they would be much less in most ranges, fantasy figures such as these wouldn't get a second look at these prices from most companies. Some of the high cost is due to the cost if the licence, but a lot is due to GW squeezing for as much as they think the market can bear. You're paying for the Hobbit and GW brands, not because the figures are particularly outstanding.
It's worth noting that this is speculation.
For all we know, the high cost could solely be due to licensing and rights for the actors' likenesses.
Well the high cost of all their product range including scenery would not seem to support the use of actor's likenesses as a significant factor, which leaves the licencing and whatever GW are doing.
I don't think the models are bad, and the game is pretty fun... but the thing about this game is only one person needs to buy it in any given group. Every player doesn't need his own set of dinner trolls or bilbos...
I would say the market is for a mini collector who likes LOTR to buy it, paint it then show up and say 'hey friends, I have a new game, play with my toys'.
I have games I do that with... I buy the game, paint the minis and then we play where evryone uses my Minis. It isn't a wargame where every player needs his own army for the most part.
I don't think these models are particularly bad, I have painted some LotR models and they are hard to paint IMHO so I don't paint them. But they sure look like the movie designs. I know of plenty of Mini makers who make worse looking models which cost way more so the price doesn't disturb me if it was a model I was interested in owning.
I guess it is, "if you like it, buy it... if not, don't."
Testify wrote: 75 divided by 4 is not 25, it's 18.5. That's about £11. I regard that as reasonable for a single highly-detailed model.
If you don't, don't buy it. If we all made a post every time we decided *not* to do something, dakka would be a mess.
£11 is a lot for a single piece human sized figure. There nothing particularly complex, they are fairly average figures. £11 is well above the prices are for such things from other manufacturers. Were they not LOTRGW figures they would be much less in most ranges, fantasy figures such as these wouldn't get a second look at these prices from most companies. Some of the high cost is due to the cost if the licence, but a lot is due to GW squeezing for as much as they think the market can bear. You're paying for the Hobbit and GW brands, not because the figures are particularly outstanding.
Bare in mind that these things *are* collectables. The Hobbit is a book written by the single greatest fantasy author of all time, and as a series of films are a follow up to the greatest film series ever made. In 50 or 100 years time, people may not have heard of Space Marines or the Imperium of Man, but they will have heard of the Hobbit.
Testify wrote: The Hobbit is a book written by the single greatest fantasy author of all time, ...
No, the Hobbit was written by Tolkein. Terry Pratchett came along later.
+1, noone learns to become a writer by way of Tolkein's style with overly long and descriptive writing. He created 4 great books with its own history but as an author he's terrible.
LotR and Hobbit are clearly not evergreens like Star Wars or Spiderman.
You trolling us Kid kyoto? Lord of the Rings in whatever form makes Star Wars look small. Admittedly its just about the only thing that does outside of a major sport or religion.
Testify wrote: The Hobbit is a book written by the single greatest fantasy author of all time, ...
No, the Hobbit was written by Tolkein. Terry Pratchett came along later.
+1, noone learns to become a writer by way of Tolkein's style with overly long and descriptive writing. He created 4 great books with its own history but as an author he's terrible.
Heresy!
Testify has it right.
If people cannot fathom Tolkien as written it is because the English language has devolved since the 50's, and if its overly long its because attention spans have largely declined in most English speaking cultures.
The Lord of the Rings was not written for the internet age. Linguistically it is as near perfect as can be found and the descriptions have a matchless fluidity to them.
Ozymandias wrote: There's really no way to know that, PP isn't a publicly traded company and I don't even think GW releases that detailed sales info.
Actually, there is, as unlike GW, PP isn't a distributor. The only thing that won't be accessible is their direct sales for parts and exclusives from the online store.
In fact, ICv2 keeps track of all that by directly contacting distributors and select stores. Note, they don't give out the exact numbers for the sales, only who's where.
It's been those 4 on top in that order(only in the year that Hordes was released did it hit #3, beating out Fantasy) for nigh on 5- 6 years. I don't see it changing for a while, either.
It's hard to take it as a definitive source then. Popular game are different not only by country, but by state and even city. I realise North America has a lot of gamers, but the rest of the world has more, and Privateer Press is bound to be more popular in North America because it's exactly the customer base it caters to.
Orlanth wrote: If people cannot fathom Tolkien as written it is because the English language has devolved since the 50's, and if its overly long its because attention spans have largely declined in most English speaking cultures.
My attention span is just fine, as is my English comprehension.
The problem is waffle. There's far too much of it. I don't need to know the history of every single stone that the Fellowship manages to step on during their journey. And when you get to the end of the story, and the good guys have won, and all the exciting stuff is finished... that's the time to stop writing. You don't write another 15 chapters waffling on about everything that happened afterwards, unless your intention actually is to ensure that people just don't bother reading all the way to the end of the book more than once.
Don't get me wrong, I love the LOTR series. And as the precursor to much of today's contemporary fantasy it's an impressive piece of work. But what Tolkein wrote was half fantasy epic and half 'history' textbook. Which is fine if you like reading textbooks of fantasy history... but keeps him a fair way away from the 'greatest ever fantasy writer' spot in my book...
I wouldn't put any of the GWLOTR/Hobbit products in the "Collectible" field.
A. You must paint them yourself. (Affects value and collectibility)
B. They will never increase in value.
So they don't sit in a collectors market. The toys do, the board games do, but things like the GW brand ones do not. They would need to be pre-painted and/or of a limited run to get into that market. In 10 years time the Mines of Moria set won't be making the same financial return as the 3rd ed. Space Hulk. Just the same no one will pay high rates to get a Dark Vengeance or the Hobbit set. The single limited miniature is the only part of those sets which has a Limited factor resulting in a collectible nature. If GW releases them on their own at any point though, their value plummets to nothing.
GW also skip out on hitting that area because their miniatures are not high class assembled, or better said, substandard. Its a pretty cheap plastic or resin they use and constantly has problems. If it was 1 bad mini in every 1-5-10,000 then it strikes into the rare side of the market and warrants the collectible status. But they sit in a much smaller market, in some cases 1 good cast in every 10. 1 great one in every 1000 and that doesn't go into the public.
I doubt the license has anything to do with it. All GW products are highly over-priced. Its like the housing market here. A House is valued at $500,000 but the owner wants 1 million. Sooner or later someone will come along and buy it at the owners preferred price as long as certain factors remained in place. GW has a good share of the market with little threat by anyone other than perhaps Privateer Press. They can afford to shaft us because sooner or later you will break down and pay what they want because there is no one else who makes their minis, or as has been noted, they deny you the use of other lines in their operated areas. Nothing to do with your cheaper stuff affecting their sales, its about you being denied until you crack and cave into their desires. Most people will crack and give in.
Keeping the prices high means newbies come in thinking they got in at the "good" time, the price will just increase further. Whenever you start, or started, that is when the price was the best and will always be the best in the available time frame you had. Unless you have a time machine... Which obviously you will keep secret... Stockpiling all the good stuff and living like a Lord of the Games.
Orlanth wrote: If people cannot fathom Tolkien as written it is because the English language has devolved since the 50's, and if its overly long its because attention spans have largely declined in most English speaking cultures.
My attention span is just fine, as is my English comprehension.
The problem is waffle. There's far too much of it. I don't need to know the history of every single stone that the Fellowship manages to step on during their journey. And when you get to the end of the story, and the good guys have won, and all the exciting stuff is finished... that's the time to stop writing. You don't write another 15 chapters waffling on about everything that happened afterwards, unless your intention actually is to ensure that people just don't bother reading all the way to the end of the book more than once.
Don't get me wrong, I love the LOTR series. And as the precursor to much of today's contemporary fantasy it's an impressive piece of work. But what Tolkein wrote was half fantasy epic and half 'history' textbook. Which is fine if you like reading textbooks of fantasy history... but keeps him a fair way away from the 'greatest ever fantasy writer' spot in my book...
This.
Beat me to the punch there Insaniak.
I love the films a lot more than the books, but how did Randall so crudely and eloquently put it in Clerks 2?
"If Peter Jackson wanted to blow me away with those 'Rings movies he would have ended the third one on the logical closure point, not the 25 endings that followed"
"When fething Frito wakes up from his little coma or whatever and all his Hobbit friends are jumping up and down on his bed and Sam leans in the doorway and gives him that very fething gay look."
Orlanth wrote: If people cannot fathom Tolkien as written it is because the English language has devolved since the 50's, and if its overly long its because attention spans have largely declined in most English speaking cultures.
My attention span is just fine, as is my English comprehension.
The problem is waffle. There's far too much of it. I don't need to know the history of every single stone that the Fellowship manages to step on during their journey. And when you get to the end of the story, and the go
od guys have won, and all the exciting stuff is finished... that's the time to stop writing. You don't write another 15 chapters waffling on about everything that happened afterwards, unless your intention actually is to ensure that people just don't bother reading all the way to the end of the book more than once.
Don't get me wrong, I love the LOTR series. And as the precursor to much of today's contemporary fantasy it's an impressive piece of work. But what Tolkein wrote was half fantasy epic and half 'history' textbook. Which is fine if you like reading textbooks of fantasy history... but keeps him a fair way away from the 'greatest ever fantasy writer' spot in my book...
+1
I read the books from the age of 9 through to about 11, which is back in the 80s.
Alice In Wonderland, the Narnia Books, anything by Dickens or several of his peers, all are of an age or older than Lot, yet don't suffer from the bloated verbal obesity of those books.
They are special and unique books, but Tolkien suffered too much from falling in love with his characters and setting, and lost the ability to critique his own work.
Testify wrote: 75 divided by 4 is not 25, it's 18.5. That's about £11. I regard that as reasonable for a single highly-detailed model.
If you don't, don't buy it. If we all made a post every time we decided *not* to do something, dakka would be a mess.
£11 is a lot for a single piece human sized figure. There nothing particularly complex, they are fairly average figures. £11 is well above the prices are for such things from other manufacturers. Were they not LOTRGW figures they would be much less in most ranges, fantasy figures such as these wouldn't get a second look at these prices from most companies. Some of the high cost is due to the cost if the licence, but a lot is due to GW squeezing for as much as they think the market can bear. You're paying for the Hobbit and GW brands, not because the figures are particularly outstanding.
Bare in mind that these things *are* collectables. The Hobbit is a book written by the single greatest fantasy author of all time, and as a series of films are a follow up to the greatest film series ever made. In 50 or 100 years time, people may not have heard of Space Marines or the Imperium of Man, but they will have heard of the Hobbit.
ugh, how can you call it the greatest film series of all time. it's so cheesy. it's almost as bad as twilight. they even made up and added a romance to shove down our throats to attract a female audience. i remember skipping the third movie because the second was so bad.
Testify wrote: Bare in mind that these things *are* collectables.
That's why Collector's Workshop calls it "The Hobbit Strategy Battle Collection" and released a hardcover "Hobbit Collection Manual" which includes all collection values of the collector pieces
Testify wrote: The Hobbit is a book written by the single greatest fantasy author of all time, ...
No, the Hobbit was written by Tolkein. Terry Pratchett came along later.
+1, noone learns to become a writer by way of Tolkein's style with overly long and descriptive writing. He created 4 great books with its own history but as an author he's terrible.
If you're used to Stephen King, I guess so. Tolkein is generally regarded as a very good author of fiction, though not very highly regarded by some intellectuals, purely because of his popularity.
Testify wrote: The Hobbit is a book written by the single greatest fantasy author of all time, ...
No, the Hobbit was written by Tolkein. Terry Pratchett came along later.
+1, noone learns to become a writer by way of Tolkein's style with overly long and descriptive writing. He created 4 great books with its own history but as an author he's terrible.
If you're used to Stephen King, I guess so. Tolkein is generally regarded as a very good author of fiction, though not very highly regarded by some intellectuals, purely because of his popularity.
You are wrong on both counts. For one thing, Tolkein already had his time in the intellectual spotlight during the 70s, and was also very popular. Just like Stephen King was, back when he was on drugs in the 80s. Stephen King is still fairly popular in the mainstream, even among the few literary types who are willing to "endure" fantasy fiction, while Tolkein is only relevant because so many writers decided to copy his work or improve upon it, kind of like Lovecraft. For another, Stephen King's early literature had the kind of meat English majors love: themes, characters who wrestle with the human (or otherwise) condition, honesty, modern prose techniques, themes, pretentiousness (Oh man, The Dark Tower!). Tolkein's LotR has some thematic work, but the prose is as stilted for modern readers as Lovecraft's was, and he seems to have been just as clueless about techniques such as "Chekhov's Gun". And his characters never felt like real people or wrestled with the kinds of struggles Literary types care about (except for Samwise, who was awesome).
If you stripped Tolkein's work of his name and it's place in history as the first high fantasy to steal Europe's myths and make it into print in a nonserialized manner, and read it next to Wolfe, Varley, Martin, Sanderson, Lieber, Le Guin, Hobb, Cook or even King, it would come off as tedious, underdevelopped (plot, characters, interest) and "too PG", i.e., dishonest.
He was never the best. He was just (one of) the first.
EDIT: I just want to point out that both authors echo their inspirations. Tolkein loved languages and old folklore and literature, and it shows. Stephen King studied more modern literature and taught English, and it shows. They both had different aims for their work, and they were very successful (although Tolkein's big success did not come nearly as quickly).
Also, no modern author could ever get away with writing a book where nothing happened in the first 100 pages and still get published. Well, not unless he's French.
Testify wrote: 75 divided by 4 is not 25, it's 18.5. That's about £11. I regard that as reasonable for a single highly-detailed model.
If you don't, don't buy it. If we all made a post every time we decided *not* to do something, dakka would be a mess.
£11 is a lot for a single piece human sized figure. There nothing particularly complex, they are fairly average figures. £11 is well above the prices are for such things from other manufacturers. Were they not LOTRGW figures they would be much less in most ranges, fantasy figures such as these wouldn't get a second look at these prices from most companies. Some of the high cost is due to the cost if the licence, but a lot is due to GW squeezing for as much as they think the market can bear. You're paying for the Hobbit and GW brands, not because the figures are particularly outstanding.
Bare in mind that these things *are* collectables. The Hobbit is a book written by the single greatest fantasy author of all time, and as a series of films are a follow up to the greatest film series ever made. In 50 or 100 years time, people may not have heard of Space Marines or the Imperium of Man, but they will have heard of the Hobbit.
Is this fellowship set more collectable than the previous set? Or than actual complete figures from other companies?
I guess one thing that'll improve it's collector status is its rarity, but it won't be unopened box as people will want to verify the casts. I could take a shrink-wrapped plastic/metal box from the 90's without checking, but not a finecast. I'm also not sure how many "collectors" want something that needs to be assembled/painted.
Automatically Appended Next Post: 11GBP feels like a lot for a figure in a box set, even if they would cost 15GBP individually, which is pretty expensive for a poor cast of an alright figure. I can get boutique figures in real resin for less than that (such as from CMoN, Kabuki, Scribor)
Well, I have to disagree with you guys about the Tolkien bit. I'd like you to give me one example of a single author who had created such a developed world. And another who captivated the world with his writing in the same way Tolkien did, and spawned so many works similar to his.
He may not have been the most exciting writer, and his works may have been too detailed, but if you'd worked so damn hard on creating this world you're not going to say "Legolas ate some Lembas bread" - you're going to want to expand on what Lembas bread is.
I hate to agree with the guy with the Burzum avatar (Burzum, really guy? You know who and what Varg is, right?) but Tolkien isn't nearly as bad as many are making him out to be.
I imagine those that dislike Tolkien would find it impossible to read Moby Dick, Faulkner, Ivanhoe, or other such things.
Not that Tolkien doesn't have his problems, but he was setting out to do something very specific (create a modern myth) and he does it well. That his prose comes off the way it does was sort of the point.
ugh, how can you call it the greatest film series of all time. it's so cheesy. it's almost as bad as twilight. they even made up and added a romance to shove down our throats to attract a female audience. i remember skipping the third movie because the second was so bad.
LOL you watched twilight..? Yeah, they (LotR) were good movies but not GREAT movies. Still rate them though...
Seriously, the worst thing with LotR is that it is hard to find anyone else who plays and actually get a game.
I could see people "collecting" the miniatures if they were still metal.
$140 in Australia (AUD $1.04 Vs. US $1.00) GW how much!!! You must be crazy
Testify wrote: If you're used to Stephen King, I guess so. Tolkein is generally regarded as a very good author of fiction, though not very highly regarded by some intellectuals, purely because of his popularity.
I like how you constructed it. Tolkein is a great author, and the only way you can think otherwise is if you're a lowbrow idiot hipster. No other option, bro.
TheHammer wrote: I hate to agree with the guy with the Burzum avatar (Burzum, really guy? You know who and what Varg is, right?) but Tolkien isn't nearly as bad as many are making him out to be.
.
Let me explain. No, too long. Let me sum up:
"Tolkein is the greatest fantasy writer of all time."
Testify wrote: If you're used to Stephen King, I guess so. Tolkein is generally regarded as a very good author of fiction, though not very highly regarded by some intellectuals, purely because of his popularity.
I like how you constructed it. Tolkein is a great fantasy author, and beyond that YMMV.
TheHammer wrote: I hate to agree with the guy with the Burzum avatar (Burzum, really guy? You know who and what Varg is, right?) but Tolkien isn't nearly as bad as many are making him out to be.
I imagine those that dislike Tolkien would find it impossible to read Moby Dick, Faulkner, Ivanhoe, or other such things.
Not that Tolkien doesn't have his problems, but he was setting out to do something very specific (create a modern myth) and he does it well. That his prose comes off the way it does was sort of the point.
Whilst I don't agree with his politics, Burzum is an epic band with epic music and Varg is somewhat interesting. You must admit - Filosofem and Hvis Lyset Tar Oss are phenomenal.
azreal13 wrote: They are special and unique books, but Tolkien suffered too much from falling in love with his characters and setting, and lost the ability to critique his own work.
Actually that's not true at all, the book is exactly as he intended it be. It was not meant to be a critical work and he wrote it for himself for than anyone else. He was not a professional writter and wasn't interested in writing a professional novel that everyone would be interested in, but rather creating a semi-historical piece to give a sense of mythology to an otherwise boring Great Britain. It was meant as a piece of pseudo-history and linguistics, not a piece of pop fiction. Essentially the reason there is little character development in the books is because they were, to him, the least important part of the work. They simply facilitated necessary factors in order to finish the work he was trying to produce.
I cant believe people are slagging Tolkien off by the way... It might be valid if it was coming from a prodigy in the literary world or something... but who really worth their salt in the field actually says the guy was a fething idiot?
mattyrm wrote: I cant believe people are slagging Tolkien off by the way... It might be valid if it was coming from a prodigy in the literary world or something... but who really worth their salt in the field actually says the guy was a fething idiot?
Oh look what a red herring we have here. The old adage of we're not allowed to criticize something unless we're an expert in the field.
Erm, no.
Criticism does not work that way, and for the record; I do in fact have a degree in English Lit. So stick that in your tailpipe.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Well, I have to disagree with you guys about the Tolkien bit. I'd like you to give me one example of a single author who had created such a developed world. And another who captivated the world with his writing in the same way Tolkien did, and spawned so many works similar to his.
CS Lewis, Frank Herbert, Terry Pratchett, George Lucas, Gene Roddenberry, Larry Niven, George R.R. Martin, Issac Asimov, Arther C. Clarke, Robert Jordan just for a few off the top of my head. Hell even throw L. Ron Hubbard in the mix (he started a religion based off his fiction).
He may not have been the most exciting writer, and his works may have been too detailed, but if you'd worked so damn hard on creating this world you're not going to say "Legolas ate some Lembas bread" - you're going to want to expand on what Lembas bread is.
"Legolas ate some Lembas bread (which is similar to hardtack and other trail breads of men)." Done.
mattyrm wrote: I cant believe people are slagging Tolkien off by the way... It might be valid if it was coming from a prodigy in the literary world or something... but who really worth their salt in the field actually says the guy was a fething idiot?
Oh look what a red herring we have here. The old adage of we're not allowed to criticize something unless we're an expert in the field.
Erm, no.
Criticism does not work that way, and for the record; I do in fact have a degree in English Lit. So stick that in your tailpipe.
Ok several things, firstly, you are obviously allowed to criticize anything you like, and I didn't say any differently, I just said it lacks credibility, and it obviously does, hoist that clearly logical point on board.
Not having any knowledge in something and criticizing it really does make you look silly. If you met fething Diego Maradona and you started telling him the best way to control a football, do you think he would be well impressed by your yarn and be desperate to hear more of your knowledge, or would he just think "who the feth is this guy?"
I've done 6 combat tours with the Royal Marines, do you think I would be hugely impressed by a 15 year old lad started telling me the correct way to fast-rope out of a helicopter because he has seen it on TV?
And furthermore, I'm not often one to criticize peoples educational pursuits, all learning is good learning in my eyes, but a degree in English literature is hardly "stick it in your tailpipe" material... you should practice a little humility. I mean, I'd stick it in my tailpipe and be as impressed as feth if you had a degree in theoretical physics or something regardless of the subject matter, but English literature is right up there next to "Golf course management" degrees with regards to things I will happily work up my dirt-box.
I got an A* at GCSE in English Literature and I had about as much interest in Lord of the Flies and Romeo and Juliet as I have in catching my missus in bed with my Grandad.
You must be joking. There's more to Middle-Earth than the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. There's the stories of the First Age that are amazingly developed. Let's take George Lucas - he didn't develop the Star Wars world by himself, he got the help of a team of writers, producers and things like that. Meanwhile, Tolkien developed his world by himself in the trenches of France during the First World War. Hell, he even created many different languages for use in his works. These languages can even be spoken! Half of those writers that you mentioned can trace the origin of their works to Tolkien as well.
And that won't really cut it in a novel of LOTR. Sorry.
mattyrm wrote: I cant believe people are slagging Tolkien off by the way... It might be valid if it was coming from a prodigy in the literary world or something... but who really worth their salt in the field actually says the guy was a fething idiot?
You don't have to say that he's an idiot to not like his writing style. Personally, I find it really turgid. Plus, it really hacks me off when people talk like he invented fantasy. Really dismissive of a whole bunch of bloody excellent writers that were producing fantasy before him.
mattyrm wrote: I cant believe people are slagging Tolkien off by the way... It might be valid if it was coming from a prodigy in the literary world or something... but who really worth their salt in the field actually says the guy was a fething idiot?
Oh look what a red herring we have here. The old adage of we're not allowed to criticize something unless we're an expert in the field.
Erm, no.
Criticism does not work that way, and for the record; I do in fact have a degree in English Lit. So stick that in your tailpipe.
Ok several things, firstly, you are obviously allowed to criticize anything you like, and I didn't say any differently, I just said it lacks credibility, and it obviously does, hoist that clearly logical point on board.
Not having any knowledge in something and criticizing it really does make you look silly. If you met fething Diego Maradona and you started telling him the best way to control a football, do you think he would be well impressed by your yarn and be desperate to hear more of your knowledge, or would he just think "who the feth is this guy?"
I've done 6 combat tours with the Royal Marines, do you think I would be hugely impressed by a 15 year old lad started telling me the correct way to fast-rope out of a helicopter because he has seen it on TV?
And furthermore, I'm not often one to criticize peoples educational pursuits, all learning is good learning in my eyes, but a degree in English literature is hardly "stick it in your tailpipe" material... you should practice a little humility. I mean, I'd stick it in my tailpipe and be as impressed as feth if you had a degree in theoretical physics or something regardless of the subject matter, but English literature is right up there next to "Golf course management" degrees with regards to things I will happily work up my dirt-box.
I got an A* at GCSE in English Literature and I had about as much interest in Lord of the Flies and Romeo and Juliet as I have in catching my missus in bed with my Grandad.
Back to the ignore list you go. TTFN. I really cannot be bothered with you at all now.
He threw some insults at me, I tossed a few back and I'm the bad man because he put me on his ignore list?
Come on man.. read what the bloke wrote, If people want to tell people to shove things up their asses they should at least expect a tiny bit of gak back.
On the topic, this is perfectly acceptable criticism for example...
mattyrm wrote: I cant believe people are slagging Tolkien off by the way... It might be valid if it was coming from a prodigy in the literary world or something... but who really worth their salt in the field actually says the guy was a fething idiot?
You don't have to say that he's an idiot to not like his writing style. Personally, I find it really turgid. Plus, it really hacks me off when people talk like he invented fantasy. Really dismissive of a whole bunch of bloody excellent writers that were producing fantasy before him.
And I can agree with much of it, I read absolutely loads of fantasy, and some of Tolkien's needlessly lengthy prose annoys me as well. There is a big difference though, in saying you don't like his writing style, and get annoyed by just how much smoke gets blown up his ass, and making out like you personally can do better/he was a fething moron/couldn't write for toffee. I don't care for J K Rowling, but I would never say she cant write or is totally clueless. People on the internet seem to make really wide ranging statements with regards to their personal choices of movie/music and such, and its that which I was making a point about.
Although, now I think about it.. I suppose none of this is on the topic eh?
On the topic, GW aren't losing their minds, they are just a wee bit too expensive.
People always talk about literature and art etc out of context; do I find tolkien's writing style turgid? Yes. Would I have found it turgid at the time that he wrote it? Probably not, because in the cultural context in which it was written, it was something new and exciting.
It wasn't the first fantasy ever written, but it was one of the first true epic fantasies.
If he wrote them today, they would be massacred by a modern editor, with at least 3-400 pages shaved off them, because our current cultural context is obsessed with 'quick-fix' satisfaction delivery. Look at one of the most successful modern fantasy franchises - the Harry potter books. The initial couple are almost pamphlet sized. Sadly, Rowling's editor became frightened to tell her to cut things, and as a result, she developed some similar over-detailing of irrelevant stuff to Tolkien's as the series continued.
In case anyone wants to question my right to hold an opinion, I have a degree in creative writing, have had sci-fi, fantasy and horror shorts published on both sides of the atlantic, and have written dissertations on subjects such as 'the development of the horror genre from stoker to king', so yeah, I think I'm as qualified as anyone else on here to have an opinion. :p
If he wrote them today, they would be massacred by a modern editor, with at least 3-400 pages shaved off them, because our current cultural context is obsessed with 'quick-fix' satisfaction delivery. Look at one of the most successful modern fantasy franchises - the Harry potter books. The initial couple are almost pamphlet sized. Sadly, Rowling's editor became frightened to tell her to cut things, and as a result, she developed some similar over-detailing of irrelevant stuff to Tolkien's as the series continued.
Indeed. I wonder how many people on here have been forced to have to read through any 18th century literature? From a time before they had the good grace to invent chapters (I will never read Moll Flanders again), so there is no logical stopping point? Yet many of these books are regarded as being part of the "literary canon" and have universal praise heaped upon them, even though they're a chore to read. Simply because the powers that be say so.
In case anyone wants to question my right to hold an opinion, I have a degree in creative writing, have had sci-fi, fantasy and horror shorts published on both sides of the atlantic, and have written dissertations on subjects such as 'the development of the horror genre from stoker to king', so yeah, I think I'm as qualified as anyone else on here to have an opinion. :p
I wouldn't go saying that. Apparently a degree of that ilk is a Mickey Mouse one. Oh the humanities!
If he wrote them today, they would be massacred by a modern editor, with at least 3-400 pages shaved off them, because our current cultural context is obsessed with 'quick-fix' satisfaction delivery. Look at one of the most successful modern fantasy franchises - the Harry potter books. The initial couple are almost pamphlet sized. Sadly, Rowling's editor became frightened to tell her to cut things, and as a result, she developed some similar over-detailing of irrelevant stuff to Tolkien's as the series continued.
Indeed. I wonder how many people on here have been forced to have to read through any 18th century literature? From a time before they had the good grace to invent chapters (I will never read Moll Flanders again), so there is no logical stopping point? Yet many of these books are regarded as being part of the "literary canon" and have universal praise heaped upon them, even though they're a chore to read. Simply because the powers that be say so.
You claim that you have a degree in English literature?
I'm fricking 16, and I appreciate a lot of books that aren't from my era. There's a reason why they stood the test of time - they're good books, and whilst they're outdated in terms of writing, they're great. The themes in them are deeper than many of the things that are put out today. It's like us gamers - we look nerdy on the outside, but inside, we may not be so nerdy and be pretty cool dudes. Nahmean?
If he wrote them today, they would be massacred by a modern editor, with at least 3-400 pages shaved off them, because our current cultural context is obsessed with 'quick-fix' satisfaction delivery. Look at one of the most successful modern fantasy franchises - the Harry potter books. The initial couple are almost pamphlet sized. Sadly, Rowling's editor became frightened to tell her to cut things, and as a result, she developed some similar over-detailing of irrelevant stuff to Tolkien's as the series continued.
Indeed. I wonder how many people on here have been forced to have to read through any 18th century literature? From a time before they had the good grace to invent chapters (I will never read Moll Flanders again), so there is no logical stopping point? Yet many of these books are regarded as being part of the "literary canon" and have universal praise heaped upon them, even though they're a chore to read. Simply because the powers that be say so.
You claim that you have a degree in English literature?
I'm fricking 16, and I appreciate a lot of books that aren't from my era. There's a reason why they stood the test of time - they're good books, and whilst they're outdated in terms of writing, they're great. The themes in them are deeper than many of the things that are put out today. It's like us gamers - we look nerdy on the outside, but inside, we may not be so nerdy and be pretty cool dudes. Nahmean?
Never knew one of the requirements for getting my degree was liking every book I had to read? Must have been in the small print.
There is much debate on the literary canon and what must be included in it (or if something is going to be put in it something else must go). I absolutely despise 18th century literature (also Ulysses. Thanks for bringing up those bad memories up Eggs! :p) with the sole exception of Tristram Shandy, as the book is fething insane, so much so an entire page is black, as the book itself mourns for the death of a character. One does not have to like everything that is regarded as a staple of the genre simple because it is what made the genre what it is. There are numerous examples scattered throughout many types of media of subsequent works being so much better than the original (or what people regard as being the origin).
Who'd have thought we'd be having a debate on the literary canon on Dakka? Takes me back.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You are wrong on both counts. For one thing, Tolkein already had his time in the intellectual spotlight during the 70s, and was also very popular. Just like Stephen King was, back when he was on drugs in the 80s. Stephen King is still fairly popular in the mainstream, even among the few literary types who are willing to "endure" fantasy fiction, while Tolkein is only relevant because so many writers decided to copy his work or improve upon it, kind of like Lovecraft. For another, Stephen King's early literature had the kind of meat English majors love: themes, characters who wrestle with the human (or otherwise) condition, honesty, modern prose techniques, themes, pretentiousness (Oh man, The Dark Tower!). Tolkein's LotR has some thematic work, but the prose is as stilted for modern readers as Lovecraft's was, and he seems to have been just as clueless about techniques such as "Chekhov's Gun". And his characters never felt like real people or wrestled with the kinds of struggles Literary types care about (except for Samwise, who was awesome).
Tolkein did not "have his spotlight" in the 70s. My dad says that when he went to university in the 70s to study English, his professor asked for a show of hands who liked The Lord of The Rings. When many of the people in the room put their hands up, he said "for god's sake, why?".
And stephen king is absolute trash. If you think he is good, in any way, you and I are going to have serious difficulties. You may as well print an American flag on every single page and bind it with the hide of a bald eagle.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
If you stripped Tolkein's work of his name and it's place in history as the first high fantasy to steal Europe's myths and make it into print in a nonserialized manner, and read it next to Wolfe, Varley, Martin, Sanderson, Lieber, Le Guin, Hobb, Cook or even King, it would come off as tedious, underdevelopped (plot, characters, interest) and "too PG", i.e., dishonest.
You named loads of people no one has ever heard of and insisted they're all better than him. It's hard to not see you as a hipster. "Oh you think NOFX are good? Mate they stole it *all* from scumbag, Fartswallop and the blue blue boys".
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
He was never the best. He was just (one of) the first.
In your head, maybe. I don't know what sort of alternate world you inhabit where no one likes the Lord of the Rings.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
EDIT: I just want to point out that both authors echo their inspirations. Tolkein loved languages and old folklore and literature, and it shows. Stephen King studied more modern literature and taught English, and it shows. They both had different aims for their work, and they were very successful (although Tolkein's big success did not come nearly as quickly).
Tolkein loved languages and old folklore? Cheers for that revelation. Not like I know anything about him or his work, or my dad is both a rabid Tolkein fan and an academic in ancient European folklore who's constantly telling me about some obscure Nordic poem that the name "Gandalf" comes from.
But yeah, keep the lessons coming bro. If you keep telling me things I already know, and keep reeling off impossibly long lists of obscure unheard of authors, you might start to look clever
BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Also, no modern author could ever get away with writing a book where nothing happened in the first 100 pages and still get published. Well, not unless he's French.
They said that at the time. They were wrong. Go read Dan Brown.
Ouze wrote:
I like how you constructed it. Tolkein is a great author, and the only way you can think otherwise is if you're a lowbrow idiot hipster. No other option, bro.
Eggs wrote: Wolfe, Varley, Martin, Sanderson, Lieber, Le Guin, Hobb, Cook and King are not 'people no one has heard of'.
Not heard of game of thrones? Or earthsea? Or any number of Steven king books/films/tv series etc?
Don't assume because you don't know who a writer is, no one else will!
King was the exception. I've not read Game of Thrones but I saw it on tv. 10 hours and not a single thing has actually happened. The premise was barely established. It was a piss-take.
Testify wrote: I've not read Game of Thrones but I saw it on tv. 10 hours and not a single thing has actually happened. The premise was barely established. It was a piss-take.
I don't know where to start with this and seeing as we're veering off topic, it's probably best not to get into it too much, BUT...
GoT series 1 follows a well defined arc and narratively speaking, there is not a single character in the same "place" as they were at the beginning (with the possible exception of Varys who doesn't seem to evolve much).
I don't know. Things still seem "Off" to me when it comes to te hobbit game.
Look at what you have for "Good Guys" : You have the Council of White, and whats in the starter set. And the starter contains Gandolf, who's also one of the 4 figures in the Council....
Eggs wrote:Actually, I'd agree that game of thrones is pretty slow going and bogged down with detail, but no more so than Lotr.
I suppose there's a difference between detail that draws from ancient myths, and detail for the sake of detail. I find it odd that so many people find LOTR "difficult" in places. Disregarding the songs (seriously tolkein wtf?) I never found it slow or over-descriptive.
Flashman wrote:
Testify wrote: I've not read Game of Thrones but I saw it on tv. 10 hours and not a single thing has actually happened. The premise was barely established. It was a piss-take.
I don't know where to start with this and seeing as we're veering off topic, it's probably best not to get into it too much, BUT...
GoT series 1 follows a well defined arc and narratively speaking, there is not a single character in the same "place" as they were at the beginning (with the possible exception of Varys who doesn't seem to evolve much).
Right. You clearly regard this as a good thing.
If I wanted to read about 20 charectors story arks, i'd get 20 charectors books. There's nothing wrong with having a main plotline.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: You must be joking. There's more to Middle-Earth than the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. There's the stories of the First Age that are amazingly developed. Let's take George Lucas - he didn't develop the Star Wars world by himself, he got the help of a team of writers, producers and things like that. Meanwhile, Tolkien developed his world by himself in the trenches of France during the First World War.
Neither did Tolkien then, and it wasn't all done during WW1. He started the Silmarillion there but The Hobbit wasn't written until the 1930's and LotR during the late 30's- late 40's. He had help from his son picking up where he left off not to mention all the editors along the way. Most of what he wrote was derived from Biblical, Arthurian, Norse and Celtic Mythology so it's not that original at all then either. None of those was the point you asked about though since you wanted to know what other authors created their own worlds as detailed as Middle Earth. Nice deflection attempt though. You might want to try an advanced course in Tolkien literature in college though to help round out your knowledge.
Hell, he even created many different languages for use in his works. These languages can even be spoken! Half of those writers that you mentioned can trace the origin of their works to Tolkien as well.
Klingon can be spoken too. So what?
Pratchett is really the only one who traces back to Tolkien but he unabashedly admits he drew inspiration from LotR.
Ouze wrote:
I like how you constructed it. Tolkein is a great author, and the only way you can think otherwise is if you're a lowbrow idiot hipster. No other option, bro.
azreal13 wrote: They are special and unique books, but Tolkien suffered too much from falling in love with his characters and setting, and lost the ability to critique his own work.
Actually that's not true at all, the book is exactly as he intended it be. It was not meant to be a critical work and he wrote it for himself for than anyone else. He was not a professional writter and wasn't interested in writing a professional novel that everyone would be interested in, but rather creating a semi-historical piece to give a sense of mythology to an otherwise boring Great Britain. It was meant as a piece of pseudo-history and linguistics, not a piece of pop fiction. Essentially the reason there is little character development in the books is because they were, to him, the least important part of the work. They simply facilitated necessary factors in order to finish the work he was trying to produce.
So your reasoning is that it doesn't matter that the books are too self indulgent because they were meant to be?
Whatever the criticisms levelled at Tolkien as a author, he was an intellectual as a professor of early languages and an associate of CS Lewis and the Inklings, he wrote books which are among the most widely read of all fantasy novels, and those books are among the primary sources that shaped the modern concept of heroic fantasy fiction.
It does amuse me that some posting seem to think that enjoying the books and acknowledging their importance doesn't preclude a person from being critical and suggesting that they weren't perfect.
It does amuse me that some posting seem to think that enjoying the books and acknowledging their importance doesn't preclude a person from being critical and suggesting that they weren't perfect.
Yup. I loved the whole world of LOTR (my first exposure to it incidentally being watching the Ralph Bakshi version at my Grandparent's house). I had a good working knowledge of the plot and saw the films. Then I tried to read the books whilst at uni. Ugh! The concept and world was beautiful but the execution in the original text was horrible IMO. Just stodgy and plodding in many places.
You can tell Peter Jackson was somewhat aware of this, as several things were cut due to pacing issues (Tom Bombadil anyone?).
I'll be the first one to say that I found Tolkien's books tedious and i've read all of them, they're not an easy read, it's not paced.
But, they are good.
And what's with comparing apples to oranges on here? Tolkien should be compared to his contemporaries, like C.S Lewis, MacDonald, Wyke-Smith, Morris etc.
but then again, taste is subjective, i'm not going to like everything that anyone else likes and vice-versa.
just enjoy what you enjoy and stop using rhetorics to your liking lads
azreal13 wrote: They are special and unique books, but Tolkien suffered too much from falling in love with his characters and setting, and lost the ability to critique his own work.
Actually that's not true at all, the book is exactly as he intended it be. It was not meant to be a critical work and he wrote it for himself for than anyone else. He was not a professional writter and wasn't interested in writing a professional novel that everyone would be interested in, but rather creating a semi-historical piece to give a sense of mythology to an otherwise boring Great Britain. It was meant as a piece of pseudo-history and linguistics, not a piece of pop fiction. Essentially the reason there is little character development in the books is because they were, to him, the least important part of the work. They simply facilitated necessary factors in order to finish the work he was trying to produce.
So your reasoning is that it doesn't matter that the books are too self indulgent because they were meant to be?
I think it's important to remember that there was culture before post-modernism.
azreal13 wrote: They are special and unique books, but Tolkien suffered too much from falling in love with his characters and setting, and lost the ability to critique his own work.
Actually that's not true at all, the book is exactly as he intended it be. It was not meant to be a critical work and he wrote it for himself for than anyone else. He was not a professional writter and wasn't interested in writing a professional novel that everyone would be interested in, but rather creating a semi-historical piece to give a sense of mythology to an otherwise boring Great Britain. It was meant as a piece of pseudo-history and linguistics, not a piece of pop fiction. Essentially the reason there is little character development in the books is because they were, to him, the least important part of the work. They simply facilitated necessary factors in order to finish the work he was trying to produce.
So your reasoning is that it doesn't matter that the books are too self indulgent because they were meant to be?
I think it's important to remember that there was culture before post-modernism.
Yeah, you're going to have to expand that so it doesn't sound like meaningless waffle.
azreal13 wrote: They are special and unique books, but Tolkien suffered too much from falling in love with his characters and setting, and lost the ability to critique his own work.
Actually that's not true at all, the book is exactly as he intended it be. It was not meant to be a critical work and he wrote it for himself for than anyone else. He was not a professional writter and wasn't interested in writing a professional novel that everyone would be interested in, but rather creating a semi-historical piece to give a sense of mythology to an otherwise boring Great Britain. It was meant as a piece of pseudo-history and linguistics, not a piece of pop fiction. Essentially the reason there is little character development in the books is because they were, to him, the least important part of the work. They simply facilitated necessary factors in order to finish the work he was trying to produce.
So your reasoning is that it doesn't matter that the books are too self indulgent because they were meant to be?
I think it's important to remember that there was culture before post-modernism.
Yeah, you're going to have to expand that so it doesn't sound like meaningless waffle.
I'm going to paraphrase one of my lecturers here "Avant-garde is French for bullcrap."
Consider though that children are attracted to bright colors. I think that the brown and off white characters we see here will fail to capture their imagination as much as the vivid greens, reds, blues and whites of the former LOTR sets.
Sadly many people have lost their jobs or taken pay cuts due to the recession. Factor in also the increase in fuel prices. Factor in the increased cost of food, which will rise next year again in the UK as Tesco has forewarned a price rise. So overall there will be less families and individuals with the capital to invest in playing the game. This could have a severe effect on the number of gaming groups who play the game, which in turn reduces the hype and thus lowers sales.
Poor sales would affect the share value of games workshop. I remember being told that the game 'GorkaMorka' nearly sunk Games Workshop in the 90s because of how much it cost to publish and how few copies they sold. Could the Hobbit have consequences this serious for their company? It certainly wouldn't surprise me.
I feel I might be starting to understand those who say any Games Workshop product is value for money though. Am I right in saying that you have never paid rent, gas or food bills in your entire life and still live with your mother? And that, consequently, 100% of all income is to be spent on toys? Games Workshop is piratically guaranteed the pocket money of this sector of the gaming world, so long as the products have a high entertainment value. It may be that Games Workshop is able to survive indefinitely by targeting this sector of the market. I would say however that because they have priced their products so highly, they have little room for manouvre if the cost of living for the average family keeps increasing - they will inevitably lose customers as children's parents decide to put more money away for holidays, clothing and other necessities. GW will be unable to lower the price of their models, because this would undermine investor confidence, and the value of the company would plummet. So it looks as if they can only shrink and stagnate while many of their customers concentrate on other priorities.
In brief it seems this product has little appeal to the mature gamer who is, through the miracle of the internet, able to access products from numerous competitors, and that its appeal to children may be limited.
If the product is not well received by gamers this will adversely affect Games Workshop's revenues. I can only imagine what their reaction to this might be: another price hike!
I read tolkiens books in HS, and to be frank, I've never just skipped over so many pages in my life.
Tolkien can weave a good story no doubt, but man that guy was long winded about everything. If you're the kind of person who cares about tiny details then I imagine you'd fall in love with it. I personally don't care too much about things I don't find particularly interesting that happened in the past.
What happened to Moria? That's interesting
Here's two pages about what this cliff looks like, and a song tacked on. Skip
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Well, I have to disagree with you guys about the Tolkien bit. I'd like you to give me one example of a single author who had created such a developed world. And another who captivated the world with his writing in the same way Tolkien did, and spawned so many works similar to his.
CS Lewis, Frank Herbert, Terry Pratchett, George Lucas, Gene Roddenberry, Larry Niven, George R.R. Martin, Issac Asimov, Arther C. Clarke, Robert Jordan just for a few off the top of my head. Hell even throw L. Ron Hubbard in the mix (he started a religion based off his fiction).
Ah hah hah. Most of those writers never did anything even remotely similar to depth of Tolkien's world. Jordan and Martin are MORE slow-plodding and bloated than Tolkien, if anything, and Jordan's universe is a really poor ripoff from Middle-Earth.
Tolkien's works are great precisely because of all the trouble he went through to build background, peoples, history and languages. It all adds up to make the world more real & concrete than those made by most of his peers: tiny little stuff which doesn't jump out of the page outright, but when you add it all up, it shows. That's the difference between Tolkien and someone like David Eddings: as a writer, Eddings was no worse (better, if anything) but his worlds and characters were crude cardboard cutouts thought up in five minutes, whilst Tolkien spent years just documenting vocal changes between Quenya and Sindar.
Yeah, you're going to have to expand that so it doesn't sound like meaningless waffle.
Tolkein's books are about a living breathing culture. The people, the land, the gods and the spirits are all rationalised and understood.
Compare this to the post-modern obsession with splitting and clarifying the world. If you don't see the value of the first 100 pages of the Lord of the Rings then it clearly isn't for you.
I read the books from the age of 9 through to about 11, which is back in the 80s.
Alice In Wonderland, the Narnia Books, anything by Dickens or several of his peers, all are of an age or older than Lot, yet don't suffer from the bloated verbal obesity of those books.
Duh, Narnia and Alice were children's books. That is like comparing RL Stine to Stephen King.
It's not the age thing. Much of the fantasy published today is if anything, much more bloated than Tolkien's works. Just look at Wheel of Time! Harry Potter was mentioned: Rowling's style is in fact very similar to Tolkien's in Hobbit and the books are very "full", they have enormous amount of detail, characters and plotlines, even the early ones which are much thinner than the last ones.
There were plenty of quick-reading, non-bloated, popular fiction published in 18th and 19th centuries. It's just that nobody knows those writers or books anymore, because they did not stand the test of time. They don't contain enough unique elements to entertain a literary student, and their style and setting is obsolete for modern reader. Nobody cares about, say, H. Rider Haggard anymore. Or for example, Karl May. Same thing is going to happen to many currently popular authors. I can absolutely guarantee that 50 years from now, nobody knows or cares who Dan Brown was or what books he wrote.
I love the films a lot more than the books, but how did Randall so crudely and eloquently put it in Clerks 2?
"If Peter Jackson wanted to blow me away with those 'Rings movies he would have ended the third one on the logical closure point, not the 25 endings that followed"
"When fething Frito wakes up from his little coma or whatever and all his Hobbit friends are jumping up and down on his bed and Sam leans in the doorway and gives him that very fething gay look."
This is hilarious in the sense that in a way, the films are MORE bloated than the books. Jackson is a great visionnaire and producer, but crappy director. It got even worse in King Kong, I hated that.
I read the books from the age of 9 through to about 11, which is back in the 80s.
Alice In Wonderland, the Narnia Books, anything by Dickens or several of his peers, all are of an age or older than Lot, yet don't suffer from the bloated verbal obesity of those books.
Duh, Narnia and Alice were children's books. That is like comparing RL Stine to Stephen King.
It's not the age thing. Much of the fantasy published today is if anything, much more bloated than Tolkien's works. Just look at Wheel of Time! Harry Potter was mentioned: Rowling's style is in fact very similar to Tolkien's in Hobbit and the books are very "full", they have enormous amount of detail, characters and plotlines, even the early ones which are much thinner than the last ones.
There were plenty of quick-reading, non-bloated, popular fiction published in 18th and 19th centuries. It's just that nobody knows those writers or books anymore, because they did not stand the test of time. They don't contain enough unique elements to entertain a literary student, and their style and setting is obsolete for modern reader. Nobody cares about, say, H. Rider Haggard anymore. Or for example, Karl May. Same thing is going to happen to many currently popular authors. I can absolutely guarantee that 50 years from now, nobody knows or cares who Dan Brown was or what books he wrote.
I will cut a little slack on the assumption that English isn't your first language, but for future reference, addressing someone's comments with "Duh! " is going to generally illicit and aggressively belligerent response. Don't do it.
I consider LotR to be largely a children's book, certainly most people I know who read it first read it as a child, or a young adult at least.
I will cut a little slack on the assumption that English isn't your first language, but for future reference, addressing someone's comments with "Duh! " is going to generally illicit and aggressively belligerent response. Don't do it.
I consider LotR to be largely a children's book, certainly most people I know who read it first read it as a child, or a young adult at least.
Lots of kids also read Tom Clancy or Jane Austin, I don't consider them children's books either.
Backfire wrote: That's the difference between Tolkien and someone like David Eddings: as a writer, Eddings was no worse (better, if anything) but his worlds and characters were crude cardboard cutouts thought up in five minutes, whilst Tolkien spent years just documenting vocal changes between Quenya and Sindar.
Uh, Eddings spent several years developing the setting for the Belgariad. It was a hge, complex tapestry of different nations, all with their own identities and histories. His characters, though, were indeed just cardboard cutouts...
The big problem with Eddings wasn't the lack of background, it was his belief that the only way to be a successful fantasy writer was to essentially re-write the Lord of the Rings in a different setting. And so he did. And then he did it again. And again. And again. And then he combined a few of the characters, and did it again in a single book. And then cam the Elder Gods... and I have no idea what he was thinking by that point...
To be fair, I enjoyed the hell out of Eddings as a kid... But these days, I re-read the Belgariad and stop there before it all gets too painfully repetitive.
Backfire wrote: That's the difference between Tolkien and someone like David Eddings: as a writer, Eddings was no worse (better, if anything) but his worlds and characters were crude cardboard cutouts thought up in five minutes, whilst Tolkien spent years just documenting vocal changes between Quenya and Sindar.
Uh, Eddings spent several years developing the setting for the Belgariad. It was a hge, complex tapestry of different nations, all with their own identities and histories. His characters, though, were indeed just cardboard cutouts...
The big problem with Eddings wasn't the lack of background, it was his belief that the only way to be a successful fantasy writer was to essentially re-write the Lord of the Rings in a different setting. And so he did. And then he did it again. And again. And again. And then he combined a few of the characters, and did it again in a single book. And then cam the Elder Gods... and I have no idea what he was thinking by that point...
To be fair, I enjoyed the hell out of Eddings as a kid... But these days, I re-read the Belgariad and stop there before it all gets too painfully repetitive.
Eddings might have claimed to have spent years developing world for the Belgariad but if he did, I'm left wondering to what exactly he used his time: his world has almost no history, with nearly all nations staying the same for thousands of years and their "nationalistic characteristics" are very stereotypic and most people today would likely consider them racist. In fairness though, admittably his first world shows at least some inspiration and attempt compared to really boring efforts for Elenium and Althalus. IIRC Eddings was big fan of Medieval knight stories, and even claimed it's impossible to write fantasy without reading those stories first. I think I disagree with that.
I reread Belgariad some years ago to see if it had still stood test of time and I admit enjoying it second time around too. He was genuinely quite good writer, it's unfortunate he had to tarnish his legacy by cashing it out rewriting the same story over & over again. Though, I give him bonus points for coming up with actual plot devices to justify his copypasting. Most other writers don't bother.
...soooooo getting off topic much? I'll just add this before getting drawn into a debate that cannot be won by either side.
Anyway, Tolkien's works were (admitted by the author) a huge bloated thing that he was positive no one, save a select few, would like. Tolkien also was an amateur, not professional writer. He did things no professional would have dared, and any modern publisher would have a heart attack over. His work is a living, breathing, detail-oriented work that wasn't edited but completely re-written each time Tolkien decided to change something. It is a complete mess for pacing, plot, and character development for many important characters that is only expanded upon and explained in the appendices. Hell, the publisher had to convince Tolkien to split the thing into 3 books, instead of the one volume he started with, simply because no one could rationally think of how to bind something that massive at the time.
Yet for all that, the works were beloved, well received. Are there problems? Yes. There are scores of scenes where nothing happens to advance the plot, and even more sections of writing that seem completely out of place for the actions happening at the times. But we must keep in mind that the books were in fact written in a far different time and place than the current modern form of written works, and were written (or in some cases pieced together by his son *eyes the Silmarillion shiftily*) because Tolkien and C.S. Lewis realized that they were going to have to write the kinds of books they wanted to read, because no on else had or was. Despite the numerous problems, I enjoy them, even if it takes me a while to work my way through it, and there is no denying the effect they have had on the entire genre of Fantasy... primarily because before Tolkien, for all intent and purposes the genre was non-existent.
Yeah, by modern standards (and even some of the times) the books are poorly written. No surprise, but what they have done for the genre is unmistakable, and the world itself captured the imaginations of countless readers, critics, and fans alike.
It would seem. So assuming more young 'uns are going to want this game than adult gamers, what do you guys think this would do for the game? Let's say that, for sanity's sake, they are level headed enough to not become shrieking little monsters. It might actually make a good way to get kids into the hobby without chucking a rule book to them that doubles as a club because it's fairly hefty. Does anyone see this as a good thing?
Lots of kids also read Tom Clancy or Jane Austin, I don't consider them children's books either.
Ok. So what's your point?
There is a difference between books for children and books that children read?
No argument here.
The intended audience really has no bearing on how good or bad a work is, only how appropriate.
Of course it has bearing, if you compromise your writing based on age or taste of your expected readership. I don't blame any writers doing that, mind you (Isaac Asimov flat out said that he toned his writing style "for worse" to gain wider audience) but it might prove a limitation for some readers. I've only read first book of Narnia, and while I like the imagery, the writing is just way too sparse and simplistic for my taste. Better example might be LeGuin's Earthsea which does give out a feeling of depth & history, just like Tolkien, and which are also much more economically written. I liked those books both as a child and adult.
If the kids round you are reading Wilde and Shakespeare voluntarily, I'd be very surprised.
People who're into English get into Shakespeare at a young age. People who're into fantasy get into Tolkein at a young age.
Just because an author is deemed so brilliant so as to make him the first port of call in a field, doesn't mean it's "for children". You can't possibly compare Rowling to Tolkein for example, or Pullman (who's awesome btw, but definitely adolescent).
Tolkien is not considered brilliant by anybody with any sound literary background. Ubiquitous, yes, brilliant? Not so much.
Clearly you think he represents some sort of gold standard to you, either because you really think so or because of emperors new clothes syndrome. Either way, that's your right, but you aren't going to convince me that the books have any real worth as literature. Which doesn't mean they're worthless before you jump all over that.
If you think they count as grown up books too, then fine, but the fact that he tells the stories from the perspective of the hobbits, who are inherently child like in aspect, a trait common in most children's books, alongside the very carefully defined goodies and baddies and almost total absence of grey morality, and you have a pretty good paradigm of a children's story.
azreal13 wrote: ...alongside the very carefully defined goodies and baddies and almost total absence of grey morality, and you have a pretty good paradigm of a children's story.
IMHO
...and of pretty much *any* story before a certain point in time, for that matter. Most epics have a distinct lack of grey areas, clear protagonists and what have you; still, would you say Virgil wrote childrens' stories?
LOTR is well written and Tolkein was a brilliantly talented author and linguistic mind.
That being said, I didn't like the LOTR books at all. They're boring, tedious, the characters lack development, and too much time is wasted on singing/poetry. The Peter Jackson movies introduced a real sense of suspense and life into the characters.
LOTR was a brilliant piece of work, no question there.
Today, at the FLGS, saw all that great and new Hobit stuff still sitting on the shelf where it was when it was first put out. No one came in looking for it, gamer or collector. No one really looked at it. no one picked up the box to look at it. Great stuff, overpriced stuff.
Harriticus wrote: LOTR is well written and Tolkein was a brilliantly talented author and linguistic mind.
That being said, I didn't like the LOTR books at all. They're boring, tedious, the characters lack development, and too much time is wasted on singing/poetry. The Peter Jackson movies introduced a real sense of suspense and life into the characters.
No, what Jackson did is that he "Hollywoodized" the characters, so moviegoers would see familiar stereotypes. This was particularly evident in character of Aragorn. However, there are no strict "rules" how to write good characters, and it's myth that character development in the sense that character grows and evolves during the span of the story is a necessity. Only poor, unoriginal writers limit themselves with such paradigms.
LotR is not perfect (particularly Frodo's journey gets pretty tedious at times and Tolkien himself admitted he wasn't as excited writing that part of the story) but within its own genre (high fantasy) it's still the gold standard, that is extremely obvious.
What I'm worried about the Hobbit movies is that Jackson gives them all-out "epic" treatment like he did with RotK. But Hobbit is not such an epic story and going all-out massive, epic and ethereal is not going to suit the settings or characters.
Consider though that children are attracted to bright colors. I think that the brown and off white characters we see here will fail to capture their imagination as much as the vivid greens, reds, blues and whites of the former LOTR sets.
Sadly many people have lost their jobs or taken pay cuts due to the recession. Factor in also the increase in fuel prices. Factor in the increased cost of food, which will rise next year again in the UK as Tesco has forewarned a price rise.
So overall there will be less families and individuals with the capital to invest in playing the game. This could have a severe effect on the number of gaming groups who play the game, which in turn reduces the hype and thus lowers sales.
Poor sales would affect the share value of games workshop. I remember being told that the game 'GorkaMorka' nearly sunk Games Workshop in the 90s because of how much it cost to publish and how few copies they sold.
Could the Hobbit have consequences this serious for their company? It certainly wouldn't surprise me.
I feel I might be starting to understand those who say any Games Workshop product is value for money though. Am I right in saying that you have never paid rent, gas or food bills in your entire life and still live with your mother?
And that, consequently, 100% of all income is to be spent on toys? Games Workshop is piratically guaranteed the pocket money of this sector of the gaming world, so long as the products have a high entertainment value.
It may be that Games Workshop is able to survive indefinitely by targeting this sector of the market. I would say however that because they have priced their products so highly, they have little room for manouvre if the cost of living for
the average family keeps increasing - they will inevitably lose customers as children's parents decide to put more money away for holidays, clothing and other necessities. GW will be unable to lower the price of their models, because this
would undermine investor confidence, and the value of the company would plummet. So it looks as if they can only shrink and stagnate while many of their customers concentrate on other priorities.
In brief it seems this product has little appeal to the mature gamer who is, through the miracle of the internet, able to access products from numerous competitors, and that its appeal to children may be limited.
If the product is not well received by gamers this will adversely affect Games Workshop's revenues. I can only imagine what their reaction to this might be: another price hike!
I agree with this, especially with the "Value for money" part. GW models are already past the threshold I consider good value for my money Some of the models would cost a friend of mine his WEEKLY pay. I have no doubt that GW is driving away potential customers by too high prices.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: You must be joking. There's more to Middle-Earth than the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. There's the stories of the First Age that are amazingly developed. Let's take George Lucas - he didn't develop the Star Wars world by himself, he got the help of a team of writers, producers and things like that. Meanwhile, Tolkien developed his world by himself in the trenches of France during the First World War.
Neither did Tolkien then, and it wasn't all done during WW1. He started the Silmarillion there but The Hobbit wasn't written until the 1930's and LotR during the late 30's- late 40's. He had help from his son picking up where he left off not to mention all the editors along the way. Most of what he wrote was derived from Biblical, Arthurian, Norse and Celtic Mythology so it's not that original at all then either. None of those was the point you asked about though since you wanted to know what other authors created their own worlds as detailed as Middle Earth. Nice deflection attempt though. You might want to try an advanced course in Tolkien literature in college though to help round out your knowledge.
Hell, he even created many different languages for use in his works. These languages can even be spoken! Half of those writers that you mentioned can trace the origin of their works to Tolkien as well.
Klingon can be spoken too. So what?
Pratchett is really the only one who traces back to Tolkien but he unabashedly admits he drew inspiration from LotR.
1. If you argue it like that, then you could say for example that Bathory wasn't that original because all the stuff he wrote was lifted from Thrash Metal or that Black Flag really was just the Ramones but louder. Nothing is original with arguments like that.
2. If I knew that I wasn't throwing money away, I would do a Tolkien literature course.
3. Also using one of your arguments and using it for another thing, 2nd wave black metal was created by Euronymous from Mayhem. But since Euronymous wasn't the only member in Mayhem at the time, then the 2nd wave cannot have been started by him. Yes, I do know about his son, but did he have such a major part in the creation of the world as some of Lucas' writers?
4. Klingon is one language developed by a team of people. Sindarin, the Black Speech, Numenorean etc. were all created by a single man with maybe a bit of external help.
May have been mentioned before but has anybody else seen that Jackson is making "The Hobbit" into THREE SEPERATE MOVIES! I can't think of a more discouraging example of squeezing every last drop of money out of a franchise. I expect GW to follow suit and bum-frack their customers for every dime they can.
Lint wrote: May have been mentioned before but has anybody else seen that Jackson is making "The Hobbit" into THREE SEPERATE MOVIES! I can't think of a more discouraging example of squeezing every last drop of money out of a franchise. I expect GW to follow suit and bum-frack their customers for every dime they can.
Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.
Though I am disappointed on the sub headings. We should have gone with "The Hobbit: There", "The Hobbit: And" and "The Hobbit: Back Again" for silly Abbot and Costello shenanigans with the second film when trying to buy a ticket for it.
Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.
True story, I am just now hearing this. I heard it was going to be 2 movies and thought to myself "Wow they're really taking that horse for a ride." But yeah, three movies is incredibly stupid imho. TRotK could've maybe been 2 movies, following the recent trend ala Harry Potter and Twilight grand finales, but I just don't see how you can stretch the Hobbit into 3 fething movies.
That's where GW gets the balls to upcharge all the Hobbit merch, they're just tagging along with Jackson and the film producers.
Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.
True story, I am just now hearing this. I heard it was going to be 2 movies and thought to myself "Wow they're really taking that horse for a ride." But yeah, three movies is incredibly stupid imho. TRotK could've maybe been 2 movies, following the recent trend ala Harry Potter and Twilight grand finales, but I just don't see how you can stretch the Hobbit into 3 fething movies.
That's where GW gets the balls to upcharge all the Hobbit merch, they're just tagging along with Jackson and the film producers.
They are going to make up a bunch of stuff for the battle of five armies, I also heard the 3rd movie was going to be a 'cleanup' to LotR as LotR is 7 books and they basically totally left out the 7th book where Saurman goes and wrecks up the shire (even though they explicitly showed it in Frodo's vision with galadriel). I heard they may be filming that part as a way to close out the story so who knows.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Well, I have to disagree with you guys about the Tolkien bit. I'd like you to give me one example of a single author who had created such a developed world. And another who captivated the world with his writing in the same way Tolkien did, and spawned so many works similar to his.
CS Lewis, Frank Herbert, Terry Pratchett, George Lucas, Gene Roddenberry, Larry Niven, George R.R. Martin, Issac Asimov, Arther C. Clarke, Robert Jordan just for a few off the top of my head. Hell even throw L. Ron Hubbard in the mix (he started a religion based off his fiction).
Ah hah hah. Most of those writers never did anything even remotely similar to depth of Tolkien's world.
How much time did Tolkien spend developing the ecology of Middle-Earth? How about politics? Technology?
Tolkien is likely unmatched in his treatment of his world's history and languages...I have no problem giving you that point. But note that those things also have little to no importance about whether the LotR itself is great literature or not.
What I'm worried about the Hobbit movies is that Jackson gives them all-out "epic" treatment like he did with RotK. But Hobbit is not such an epic story and going all-out massive, epic and ethereal is not going to suit the settings or characters.
Yep. This is a significant concern for me as well. The Hobbit could easily be a trim film with a tight narrative. The story is about Bilbo, and you can toss a lot of the Hobbit that is not necessary to tell that story. The Hobbit is a journey of self-discovery in which Bilbo learns to believe in himself and comes to appreciate his agency in the world around him; essentially a coming of age tale geared towards a young reader. Most of the characters are rather flat and serve to highlight the ways in which Bilbo is growing and developing. You don't need every conflict in the book to tell that story, and you certainly don't need to develop Gandalf and the White Council.
Principally, the characters other than Bilbo are driven by greed. So too is Bilbo to a certain degree, but he matures and learns to overcome the desire for wealth and power.
Dwarves - they want GOLD (and vengeance)
Elves - they want GOLD (and a little vengeance)
Men - they want GOLD (and a slice of that vengeance too)
The characters are merely backdrops for Bilbo and all and sundry get their comeuppance for their hubris, except for Bilbo, who returns home rich and happy. Is there something more going on behind the core narrative? Absolutely. It is all very interesting and it makes the world rich. Does it need to be in the movie? Absolutely not.
And to be on topic, do we need a bunch of minis for all of it? Absolutely not.
Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.
True story, I am just now hearing this. I heard it was going to be 2 movies and thought to myself "Wow they're really taking that horse for a ride." But yeah, three movies is incredibly stupid imho. TRotK could've maybe been 2 movies, following the recent trend ala Harry Potter and Twilight grand finales, but I just don't see how you can stretch the Hobbit into 3 fething movies.
That's where GW gets the balls to upcharge all the Hobbit merch, they're just tagging along with Jackson and the film producers.
Apparently they're using a lot of stuff Tolkein wrote after the Hobbit was published (and I assume republished to tie into LotR better). Stuff like, say, Gandalf rides off, then comes back. The story will use notes Tolkein wrote to follow these additional paths and stretch the story out.
I thought the Hobbit was a far superior story simply because it was so much more concise and had much better pacing. It was a simple story with characters that were actually of some interest.
Lord of the Rings was boring as hell, and an absolute chore to read. The movies I view as better stories because they took the solid framework and got rid of all the extra fluff that bogged the books down so much. The Hobbit looks to be doing the exact opposite.
It's not that, it's just you've got one side of the story as this epic fight between good and evil and every time it hits some really interesting part of the fight, oops, swaps to Frodo. They picked terrible places for some of the story swaps.
I think that turning The Hobbit into three movies could go either way good or bad so I will reserve judgement until after I see Unexpected journey.
But on topic I think that the price that GW is asking for some of the Hobbit merchandise is absolutely ludicrous but isn't that the way of GW these days so all in all its normal.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: Well, I have to disagree with you guys about the Tolkien bit. I'd like you to give me one example of a single author who had created such a developed world. And another who captivated the world with his writing in the same way Tolkien did, and spawned so many works similar to his.
CS Lewis, Frank Herbert, Terry Pratchett, George Lucas, Gene Roddenberry, Larry Niven, George R.R. Martin, Issac Asimov, Arther C. Clarke, Robert Jordan just for a few off the top of my head. Hell even throw L. Ron Hubbard in the mix (he started a religion based off his fiction).
Ah hah hah. Most of those writers never did anything even remotely similar to depth of Tolkien's world.
How much time did Tolkien spend developing the ecology of Middle-Earth? How about politics? Technology?
Tolkien is likely unmatched in his treatment of his world's history and languages...I have no problem giving you that point. But note that those things also have little to no importance about whether the LotR itself is great literature or not.
Of course they have great importance. A book is good if it makes you to want to read it. What aspects of the book make you read it is secondary, as such. And obviously not everyone has similar tastes. I happen to think that many currently very popular writers are absolutely terrible and couldn't write themselves out of a paper bag.
Tolkien, indeed did quite a bit to describe ecology of the Middle-Earth, ditto for politics, technology relatively limited but same is true for most other fantasy writers, heck even many scifi-writers. Asimov for example put relatively attention to technology and much of it is in fact shockingly primitive - for example ships' computers are laughably slow and only marginally faster calculating hyperjumps than humans!
Tolkein's world is pretty simplistic. While the history behind the creation of everything is rich, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. Main flaw with Middle-Earth.
Which is why imo I find the most interesting fantasy world to be George R. R. Martin's ASOIF world.
Harriticus wrote: Tolkein's world is pretty simplistic. While the history behind the creation of everything is rich, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. Main flaw with Middle-Earth.
Which is why imo I find the most interesting fantasy world to be George R. R. Martin's ASOIF world.
Yeah, I was interested in Martin's world too until I got to the end of the last book he wrote and realized that all he's really trying to say is that evil prevails no matter what 'good' men do (or in the world of Game of Thrones, perhaps I should say no matter what 'better' men do since it isn't QUITE so black and white).
Harriticus wrote: Tolkein's world is pretty simplistic. While the history behind the creation of everything is rich, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. Main flaw with Middle-Earth.
Which is why imo I find the most interesting fantasy world to be George R. R. Martin's ASOIF world.
I don't get this argument that Tolkien was some sort of genius for coming up with tons of boring, derivative background. The biggest lol is that my copy of the Silmarillion, begins with a letter where Tolkien says he doesn't want to create a Christian feeling mythology, and the next few chapters are the Christian creation story with the names changed. Much of the rest of his background is either pointless or clearly mythology that has been repurposed.
Any long-running fantasy series set in one universe will have just as much bloated background (Hello, Larry Niven, Martin, et al!). Heck, the Malazan Book of the Fallen has much more detail and covers a much longer time period, and the prose is even marginally better. Most RPG supplements has as much background, but are far more entertaining. Sorry, Tolkien.
As for the language--is that supposed to be a positive? If I wrote a bloated sci fi story about aliens and then turned every 20th word into an alien word and made you look it up in the appendix, would that really enhance your reading experience? And I say this as someone who shouted the correct pronunciation of an elvish word at Colbert last night...
So we are spoiled in this wonderful modern era. Tolkein is revered for his position as the father of the modern high fantasy/adventure novel. Not for the actual quality of said works. Many people have improved upon the model he laid out, but that does not in any way diminish his contribution to the genre.
Your argument about Tolkein is akin to claiming that we should not be impressed by Henry Ford and the Model T simply because the Toyota Prius exists today.
Focke_Wulf wrote: At the same time think about this:
How many people buy the huge resin FW models (titans for example) that they might use here and there?
Compare that to this 'starter' set that you might use a lot.
Different markets. FW is resin pap made for 40k fanbois. A starter box is a completely different thing, designed to hook you into the game. Esp. if like with LOTR, GW are going to be selling this in normal shops like WH Smiths.
On a side note: Tolkein's universe/world creation mythology is much more similar to that of the Greeks then it is the the Judeo-Christian version. As creation of the material universe is participatory with created beings, and almost hands off by their originator.
Lightcavalier wrote: On a side note: Tolkein's universe/world creation mythology is much more similar to that of the Greeks then it is the the Judeo-Christian version. As creation of the material universe is participatory with created beings, and almost hands off by their originator.
Tolkien's mythology as a whole is based on Northern Mythology...
Lightcavalier wrote: On a side note: Tolkein's universe/world creation mythology is much more similar to that of the Greeks then it is the the Judeo-Christian version. As creation of the material universe is participatory with created beings, and almost hands off by their originator.
Tolkien's mythology as a whole is based on Northern Mythology...
Tolkien's mythology heavily reliant on Norther European Mythology...yes. Although he also borrows greatly from all the cultures he learned about as a linguist and as part of receiving a classical education. As well, the similarities between Greek and Norse mythology are numerous enough so as to imply a possible relationship or common origin between them. Themes from Finnish, Norse, Celtic, Slavic, Germanic, Greek, Persian, Egyptian, Judaic, Christian, Welsh and Anglo-Saxon/English mythology are appear consistently throughout his works, all of which have a heavy veneer of Northern European mythology/culture plastered over them.
As well, my comment was just meant to demonstrate the non-Christian elements of the story which another posted had written off as a retelling of the Biblical creation story.
Lightcavalier wrote: So we are spoiled in this wonderful modern era. Tolkein is revered for his position as the father of the modern high fantasy/adventure novel. Not for the actual quality of said works. Many people have improved upon the model he laid out, but that does not in any way diminish his contribution to the genre.
Your argument about Tolkein is akin to claiming that we should not be impressed by Henry Ford and the Model T simply because the Toyota Prius exists today.
I never said any such thing. Why do you think I've read all his works?
I was arguing against the idea that he was the best fantasy writer ever, or a genius who singlehandedly created the genre. Has he been imitated? Yes, almost as much as Lovecraft. Was he influential to the genre? Yes, almost as much as Anne Rice.
Edit: I mentioned mythology, too, but when the book opens with God and the angels singing the world into existence and Satan creating evil out of jealousy, and man given the special gift of mortality by God, and the garden of eden island and so on, it makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that Tolkien was all that creative or even aware of his own biases in the fantastic.
Also, the short, beardy, greedy craftsmen who speak Hebrew were created by the confused hand of some forgotten dirt deity. I loled so hard at that one. Totally original!
Lightcavalier wrote: So we are spoiled in this wonderful modern era. Tolkein is revered for his position as the father of the modern high fantasy/adventure novel. Not for the actual quality of said works. Many people have improved upon the model he laid out, but that does not in any way diminish his contribution to the genre.
Your argument about Tolkein is akin to claiming that we should not be impressed by Henry Ford and the Model T simply because the Toyota Prius exists today.
I never said any such thing. Why do you think I've read all his works?
I was arguing against the idea that he was the best fantasy writer ever, or a genius who singlehandedly created the genre. Has he been imitated? Yes, almost as much as Lovecraft. Was he influential to the genre? Yes, almost as much as Anne Rice.
Edit: I mentioned mythology, too, but when the book opens with God and the angels singing the world into existence and Satan creating evil out of jealousy, and man given the special gift of mortality by God, and the garden of eden island and so on, it makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that Tolkien was all that creative or even aware of his own biases in the fantastic.
Also, the short, beardy, greedy craftsmen who speak Hebrew were created by the confused hand of some forgotten dirt deity. I loled so hard at that one. Totally original!
Harriticus wrote: Tolkein's world is pretty simplistic. While the history behind the creation of everything is rich, there are the good guys and the bad guys. The good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. Main flaw with Middle-Earth.
Which is why imo I find the most interesting fantasy world to be George R. R. Martin's ASOIF world.
I don't get this argument that Tolkien was some sort of genius for coming up with tons of boring, derivative background. The biggest lol is that my copy of the Silmarillion, begins with a letter where Tolkien says he doesn't want to create a Christian feeling mythology, and the next few chapters are the Christian creation story with the names changed. Much of the rest of his background is either pointless or clearly mythology that has been repurposed.
Any long-running fantasy series set in one universe will have just as much bloated background (Hello, Larry Niven, Martin, et al!). Heck, the Malazan Book of the Fallen has much more detail and covers a much longer time period, and the prose is even marginally better. Most RPG supplements has as much background, but are far more entertaining. Sorry, Tolkien.
Sorry, but this is just a laughable proposition. Yes, there are few fantasy worlds which are as or more detailed as Middle-Earth (Glorantha, most notably) but they are group efforts, made by dozens and dozens of people over the decades. And of course Tolkien's works are derivative. Nearly every fantasy writers' worlds are derivatives. Song of Ice and Fire is if anything, more derivative than Tolkien. Anyone even cursory knowledge of pre-18th century English history will recognize many elements.
And hey, if Tolkien is so crappy, why do all those fantasy writers and universe builders keep ripping him off? Heck, WHFB and WH40k universes for starters borrow so much from Tolkien they wouldn't even exist without him.
Lightcavalier wrote: So we are spoiled in this wonderful modern era. Tolkein is revered for his position as the father of the modern high fantasy/adventure novel. Not for the actual quality of said works. Many people have improved upon the model he laid out, but that does not in any way diminish his contribution to the genre.
Your argument about Tolkein is akin to claiming that we should not be impressed by Henry Ford and the Model T simply because the Toyota Prius exists today.
I never said any such thing. Why do you think I've read all his works?
I was arguing against the idea that he was the best fantasy writer ever, or a genius who singlehandedly created the genre. Has he been imitated? Yes, almost as much as Lovecraft. Was he influential to the genre? Yes, almost as much as Anne Rice.
Edit: I mentioned mythology, too, but when the book opens with God and the angels singing the world into existence and Satan creating evil out of jealousy, and man given the special gift of mortality by God, and the garden of eden island and so on, it makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that Tolkien was all that creative or even aware of his own biases in the fantastic.
Also, the short, beardy, greedy craftsmen who speak Hebrew were created by the confused hand of some forgotten dirt deity. I loled so hard at that one. Totally original!
Right, just as totally original as christian mythology and the bible, which use mythologies (flood, creation) taken from older traditions. Yay for repurposing!
I think that GW is just trying to make as much off of this as possible. And as we've seen, they're happy if more people buy less stuff at a higher price. So they're only slightly out of their minds.
Lightcavalier wrote: So we are spoiled in this wonderful modern era. Tolkein is revered for his position as the father of the modern high fantasy/adventure novel. Not for the actual quality of said works. Many people have improved upon the model he laid out, but that does not in any way diminish his contribution to the genre.
Your argument about Tolkein is akin to claiming that we should not be impressed by Henry Ford and the Model T simply because the Toyota Prius exists today.
I never said any such thing. Why do you think I've read all his works?
I was arguing against the idea that he was the best fantasy writer ever, or a genius who singlehandedly created the genre. Has he been imitated? Yes, almost as much as Lovecraft. Was he influential to the genre? Yes, almost as much as Anne Rice.
Edit: I mentioned mythology, too, but when the book opens with God and the angels singing the world into existence and Satan creating evil out of jealousy, and man given the special gift of mortality by God, and the garden of eden island and so on, it makes it difficult to take seriously the idea that Tolkien was all that creative or even aware of his own biases in the fantastic.
Also, the short, beardy, greedy craftsmen who speak Hebrew were created by the confused hand of some forgotten dirt deity. I loled so hard at that one. Totally original!
Right, just as totally original as christian mythology and the bible, which use mythologies (flood, creation) taken from older traditions. Yay for repurposing!
Imitating an imitation doesn't make your imitation original.
Backfire wrote: And hey, if Tolkien is so crappy, why do all those fantasy writers and universe builders keep ripping him off? Heck, WHFB and WH40k universes for starters borrow so much from Tolkien they wouldn't even exist without him.
Having good ideas doesn't by itself make you a good writer.
Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.
True story, I am just now hearing this. I heard it was going to be 2 movies and thought to myself "Wow they're really taking that horse for a ride." But yeah, three movies is incredibly stupid imho. TRotK could've maybe been 2 movies, following the recent trend ala Harry Potter and Twilight grand finales, but I just don't see how you can stretch the Hobbit into 3 fething movies.
That's where GW gets the balls to upcharge all the Hobbit merch, they're just tagging along with Jackson and the film producers.
They are going to make up a bunch of stuff for the battle of five armies, I also heard the 3rd movie was going to be a 'cleanup' to LotR as LotR is 7 books and they basically totally left out the 7th book where Saurman goes and wrecks up the shire (even though they explicitly showed it in Frodo's vision with galadriel). I heard they may be filming that part as a way to close out the story so who knows.
Would be kinda hard to do the Scouring with Saruman having died at Isengard in RotK.
Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.
True story, I am just now hearing this. I heard it was going to be 2 movies and thought to myself "Wow they're really taking that horse for a ride." But yeah, three movies is incredibly stupid imho. TRotK could've maybe been 2 movies, following the recent trend ala Harry Potter and Twilight grand finales, but I just don't see how you can stretch the Hobbit into 3 fething movies.
That's where GW gets the balls to upcharge all the Hobbit merch, they're just tagging along with Jackson and the film producers.
They are going to make up a bunch of stuff for the battle of five armies, I also heard the 3rd movie was going to be a 'cleanup' to LotR as LotR is 7 books and they basically totally left out the 7th book where Saurman goes and wrecks up the shire (even though they explicitly showed it in Frodo's vision with galadriel). I heard they may be filming that part as a way to close out the story so who knows.
Would be kinda hard to do the Scouring with Saruman having died at Isengard in RotK.
He is a maiar just like gandalf and Sauron. Gandalf died too,
If they wanted to, a misleading death isn't gonna stop them or even bother movie-goers...
Howard A Treesong wrote: Imagine if we went back to the days of bloodbowl, epic and necromunda, where the WD was full of things for all systems, there would be endless moaning from people wanting the magazine to be 40k cover to cover.
The difference is that Epic and Necromunda are still 40k content to a large extent: they might not have provided rules content but if you're interested in the Space Marines you're likely interested in what large-scale Space Marine deployments look like, and if you're interested in the Imperium you might be interested in the hives of Necromunda for the same reason you're interested in the hives of Armageddon. LotR is part of an entirely different, self-contained setting, so the only overlap is going to be in the hobby content - painting guides and terrain building.
Backfire wrote: And hey, if Tolkien is so crappy, why do all those fantasy writers and universe builders keep ripping him off? Heck, WHFB and WH40k universes for starters borrow so much from Tolkien they wouldn't even exist without him.
Having good ideas doesn't by itself make you a good writer.
But nobody's going to care or know about your good ideas if you're crappy writer.
Backfire wrote: And hey, if Tolkien is so crappy, why do all those fantasy writers and universe builders keep ripping him off? Heck, WHFB and WH40k universes for starters borrow so much from Tolkien they wouldn't even exist without him.
Having good ideas doesn't by itself make you a good writer.
But nobody's going to care or know about your good ideas if you're crappy writer.
Backfire wrote: And hey, if Tolkien is so crappy, why do all those fantasy writers and universe builders keep ripping him off? Heck, WHFB and WH40k universes for starters borrow so much from Tolkien they wouldn't even exist without him.
Having good ideas doesn't by itself make you a good writer.
But nobody's going to care or know about your good ideas if you're crappy writer.
Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels are the best known and most popular Fantasy novels that created a whole new branch of literature and several in gaming (RPGs and Fantasy tabletops). That's good enough for me. Can we now get back to topic?
Kroothawk wrote: Tolkien's Lord of the Rings novels are the best known and most popular Fantasy novels that created a whole new branch of literature and several in gaming (RPGs and Fantasy tabletops). That's good enough for me. Can we now get back to topic?
Yes fething please. Come on, discuss this crap on another thread.
I was arguing against the idea that he was the best fantasy writer ever, or a genius who singlehandedly created the genre.
Actually, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis together pretty much did create the genre of epic high fantasy. They were both contemporaries writing and creating in the 1940's. Another contemporary author, Morris, never reached anything approaching the success of Lewis and Tolkien.
Prior to those two authors, the closest we have to epic fantasy were the horror writings of Poe and Lovecraft, the fairy tale based works like the story that was the basis for The Nutcracker, works with fantastic elements like The Picture of Dorian Gray, and other such works that dipped their toe into what we now recognize as an entire genre of literature separate from all those other works. There were other modern (late 19th and early 20th century) fantasy authors, but the vast majority of their works were in short story or serial form, rather than in novel form, and definitely not epic form. Even Howard, creator of the Conan series which pre-dates Tolkien and Lewis, wrote the vast majority of the stories in serial form for publication in Weird Tales rather than as books/novels. Fritz Leiber and Ray Bradbury also wrote the majority of their early works for publications as short stories. The same can be said of the authors like Lovecraft.
While the idea of "fantasy" was not created by Tolkien, he absolutely did create the concept of the epic high fantasy novel. There was nothing like The Lord of the Rings prior to its release, and that work (together with The Hobbit) are generally accepted to be the works that brought fantasy literature from the pages of periodicals like Weird Tales into the main stream.
(You know, it's not often I get to post something in a forum directly relating to what I got my undergraduate degree in.)
Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.
True story, I am just now hearing this. I heard it was going to be 2 movies and thought to myself "Wow they're really taking that horse for a ride." But yeah, three movies is incredibly stupid imho. TRotK could've maybe been 2 movies, following the recent trend ala Harry Potter and Twilight grand finales, but I just don't see how you can stretch the Hobbit into 3 fething movies.
That's where GW gets the balls to upcharge all the Hobbit merch, they're just tagging along with Jackson and the film producers.
They are going to make up a bunch of stuff for the battle of five armies, I also heard the 3rd movie was going to be a 'cleanup' to LotR as LotR is 7 books and they basically totally left out the 7th book where Saurman goes and wrecks up the shire (even though they explicitly showed it in Frodo's vision with galadriel). I heard they may be filming that part as a way to close out the story so who knows.
Would be kinda hard to do the Scouring with Saruman having died at Isengard in RotK.
He is a maiar just like gandalf and Sauron. Gandalf died too,
If they wanted to, a misleading death isn't gonna stop them or even bother movie-goers...
Yes, but Gandalf was sent back because his job wasn't done, he didn't come back because it was some innate thing maiar do. Sauron only keeps coming back because his existence is tied to the One Ring, it's implicitly stated he died a "true death" once the ring was destroyed. IIRC, the books hint that Saruman would be punished if he died since he'd turned from his mission against Sauron. I believe there's some mention of his spirit dissolving, but that may be something that Tom Shippey mentioned about the character.
angel of ecstasy wrote: Okay, we get it. Tolkien isn't underground enough for the pretentious internet crowd. Back on topic we go. Please?
Post something inflammatory that is likely to provoke a reaction in an appeal to get back on topic.
Good plan, let me know how it turns out.
FWIW It's nothing to do with any pretention or hipster thinking. Most people with a solid background in writing and literature seem to agree that the books aren't technically that good, nobody seems to think they aren't massively influential.
I was always a massive Tolkien fan when i was younger, I used to love how detailed everything was and really appreciated the depth of the world he described and the appropriateness of the words he used to do so.
I started to read it again more recently and it just seemed to drag on, maybe it was because i know what was going to happen or maybe its because it really isn't as good as I thought it was.
I'd say the "New" Fellowship of the ring which is literally 9 small plastic models for half the cost it used to be to get that and 30 goblins and scenery, that, is GW gone mad. Sheesh.
I think that they know it will be limited in sales so they gave us the price that everything else will increase to this summer with their yearly price increase. I was more blown away by the 45$ white council which includes a hearty 4 figs. 100$ Landraiders here come, 50$ 5 man troop boxes coming soon!!
I personally had some interest in the Hobbit but now I will not be participating in making this game a success.
Some people have suggested that GW would like to bring UK and US pricing up into line with Australia, seeing as people apparently buy enough there to keep the shops open. Maybe the Hobbit tests these prices in the UK, and they will start bringing up the fantasy and 40K prices if the Hobbit sells. That said, the Australian Hobbit prices are still hugely marked up as compared to the rest of the world so there doesn't seem to be a levelling off in prices.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Some people have suggested that GW would like to bring UK and US pricing up into line with Australia, seeing as people apparently buy enough there to keep the shops open.
Given how quickly games stores here come and go, that seems unlikely.
Once upon a time, Oz was GW's most profitable market. That time is long, long gone.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Some people have suggested that GW would like to bring UK and US pricing up into line with Australia, seeing as people apparently buy enough there to keep the shops open. Maybe the Hobbit tests these prices in the UK, and they will start bringing up the fantasy and 40K prices if the Hobbit sells. That said, the Australian Hobbit prices are still hugely marked up as compared to the rest of the world so there doesn't seem to be a levelling off in prices.
I don't know about UK prices, but as far as the US is concerned, it'd be a bit rough on the yanks to bring their pricing in line with Oz pricing because with the exchange rate as it is, the US is a significantly cheaper place to live and Americans earn significantly less than Australians. Making the prices the same would mean Americans pay far more relative to their wages. Of course, I'd like to see Australian prices come down to US prices
"Place your orders today and relax knowing that you're getting absolutely everything in one go."
Relax knowing once you paint everything 12 months later you might find someone who will want to play the game too! Then shamble back off to 40k.
Did I ever tell you I have, like, 3 LOTR armies and the complete Fellowship? Want to help me paint them! .....no......ummmm....no probs....I guess
Seriously though, they haven't lost their minds, because people will buy it and they will earn money from it. "Losing their minds" would be not taking the opportunity to bleed as much money out of people as possible, when they have a prime opportunity to do so. I just wish it didn't take up so many pages in WD
Just going off the title, GW lost their mind years ago. And somehow, people keep buying their stuff. I'm glad I was finally able to pull myself away from it. I'm not sure I can stay gone though, if the upcoming Daemon books and Black Templar WD codex are good though.
The average minimum wage in Australia is higher... but the median household income is lower. Americans get paid less at minimum wage (on paper at least, we don't get tips in Oz in the same way as the US), but salaried professionals generally get paid more, going by the studies I've read.
Case in point... Bretonnian Questing Knights. The horses are plastic KotR models. Only the riders, weapons, banner, and a few other bits are finecast. That's not a whole lot of resin in the box. So, anyone care to explain how they arrived at this price point?
Case in point... Bretonnian Questing Knights. The horses are plastic KotR models. Only the riders, weapons, banner, and a few other bits are finecast. That's not a whole lot of resin in the box. So, anyone care to explain how they arrived at this price point?
Case in point... Bretonnian Questing Knights. The horses are plastic KotR models. Only the riders, weapons, banner, and a few other bits are finecast. That's not a whole lot of resin in the box. So, anyone care to explain how they arrived at this price point?
See, here's where I reject your premise.
You're starting from the viewpoint that fincast resin in some way justifies the higher price point of a set.
That is, IMO a very false assumption. Remember that hobby resin of any sort is notably cheaper than metal, and that after switching to a cheaper material, GW raised the price on you. Remember also that GW was (before finecast) already notably more expensive than almost any other miniature company.
In answer to your question though, they arrived at this price point, because Ansel and the board wanted another dividend cut and a they figured (probably correctly, for now...) that it was a price the market could bear. It has nothing to do with any (imaginary) intrinsic value of finecast, it's just what they think they can get you to pay.
FWIW It's nothing to do with any pretention or hipster thinking. Most people with a solid background in writing and literature seem to agree that the books aren't technically that good, nobody seems to think they aren't massively influential.
If they have a solid background in literature they should find the notion of an objective evaluation of literature absurd. Clearly whoever you've been talking to is an enthusiastic, rather confused amateur.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
blood lance wrote: I'd say the "New" Fellowship of the ring which is literally 9 small plastic models for half the cost it used to be to get that and 30 goblins and scenery, that, is GW gone mad. Sheesh.
I'm just going to watch this post get ignored by all and sundry
The average minimum wage in Australia is higher... but the median household income is lower. Americans get paid less at minimum wage (on paper at least, we don't get tips in Oz in the same way as the US), but salaried professionals generally get paid more, going by the studies I've read.
Just a quick google, not a comprehensive comparison, but...
FWIW It's nothing to do with any pretention or hipster thinking. Most people with a solid background in writing and literature seem to agree that the books aren't technically that good, nobody seems to think they aren't massively influential.
If they have a solid background in literature they should find the notion of an objective evaluation of literature absurd. Clearly whoever you've been talking to is an enthusiastic, rather confused amateur.
How did you manage to quote me and still fail to understand what I wrote?
Of course there is no way to objectively measure the quality of a creative work, that's not what I said. There can, however, be a general consensus of opinion amongst people who know what they're talking about. If you disagree with that view then that's ok, if you can offer solid reasoning as to why (something I haven't seen you do) then even better. However being in the minority opinion when talking about a creative work is the closest you can get to being 'wrong' in this context.
If you can offer such a compelling argument that you successfully overturn the established majority view, you have my congratulations.
I find Tolkien's writing to be overly verbose, the plotting unnecessarily flabby and the whole work to be too self indulgent to be a great literary work. If you disagree that's fine.
Still, this past weekend, no interest in the Hobit crap lining the shelves at the local store. Not even jokes about it. Not a single Hobit, or even LOTR minis sold.
Kaldor wrote: I'm sure cost of living and what-not is also a huge factor.
Not as much as you’d think.
To put it (alarmingly simplistically): Currency has value, and comparative values. A Tactical Squad is not worth more depending on where you happen to be standing on a planet.
martin74 wrote: Still, this past weekend, no interest in the Hobit crap lining the shelves at the local store. Not even jokes about it. Not a single Hobit, or even LOTR minis sold.
oh good...if its slow to sell then they'll have one left at least for my birthday lol
FWIW It's nothing to do with any pretention or hipster thinking. Most people with a solid background in writing and literature seem to agree that the books aren't technically that good, nobody seems to think they aren't massively influential.
If they have a solid background in literature they should find the notion of an objective evaluation of literature absurd. Clearly whoever you've been talking to is an enthusiastic, rather confused amateur.
How did you manage to quote me and still fail to understand what I wrote?
Of course there is no way to objectively measure the quality of a creative work, that's not what I said. There can, however, be a general consensus of opinion amongst people who know what they're talking about. If you disagree with that view then that's ok, if you can offer solid reasoning as to why (something I haven't seen you do) then even better. However being in the minority opinion when talking about a creative work is the closest you can get to being 'wrong' in this context.
If you can offer such a compelling argument that you successfully overturn the established majority view, you have my congratulations.
I find Tolkien's writing to be overly verbose, the plotting unnecessarily flabby and the whole work to be too self indulgent to be a great literary work. If you disagree that's fine.
Could you stop trying to win this discussion now?
You know you're on the internet when someone claims that Tolkein not being a peice of gak is a "minority" opinion. Anyway I'll leave you to your hipster English friends. Hey what's the difference between an English degree and a bowel movement? A bowel movement requires effort.
This is my favourite passage from the Lord of the Rings: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
You may regard that as "self-indulgent". I, do not.
FWIW It's nothing to do with any pretention or hipster thinking. Most people with a solid background in writing and literature seem to agree that the books aren't technically that good, nobody seems to think they aren't massively influential.
If they have a solid background in literature they should find the notion of an objective evaluation of literature absurd. Clearly whoever you've been talking to is an enthusiastic, rather confused amateur.
How did you manage to quote me and still fail to understand what I wrote?
Of course there is no way to objectively measure the quality of a creative work, that's not what I said. There can, however, be a general consensus of opinion amongst people who know what they're talking about. If you disagree with that view then that's ok, if you can offer solid reasoning as to why (something I haven't seen you do) then even better. However being in the minority opinion when talking about a creative work is the closest you can get to being 'wrong' in this context.
If you can offer such a compelling argument that you successfully overturn the established majority view, you have my congratulations.
I find Tolkien's writing to be overly verbose, the plotting unnecessarily flabby and the whole work to be too self indulgent to be a great literary work. If you disagree that's fine.
Could you stop trying to win this discussion now?
You know you're on the internet when someone claims that Tolkein not being a peice of gak is a "minority" opinion. Anyway I'll leave you to your hipster English friends. Hey what's the difference between an English degree and a bowel movement? A bowel movement requires effort.
This is my favourite passage from the Lord of the Rings: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."
You may regard that as "self-indulgent". I, do not.
Why couldn't you have just used the quote bit, then we could have both walked away and I wouldn't be forced to contend with snide comments?
I don't hold an English degree, I am not a hipster, neither are any of my friends, I actually find that whole culture pretentious and superficial. I do however, have one thing, a mind of my fething own! That's right, I have an opinion, and the means to express why I hold that opinion, I do not expect everyone to agree with me, and sometimes I like to have a discussion with people who hold a different view as to why that may be.
It is not a competition, you do not win the internet if you somehow prove me wrong.
Art is subjective.
So all opinions are valid, as they are just opinions.
So those that like Tolken will continue to like Tolken, no matter how much other critique his 'art'.
However, the pricing of a product is a function of the sales operation.
And as such can be discussed objectivley, and comparativley.
