GW is probably happy this license is at its end. Initially when the first set came out (10 years ago?!?) it did pretty well. Even into the second movie. People were buying the models just to collect but our local area had a large but short lived group playing LOR. Problem was by the time the third movie came out it had tanked but GW locked in for ten years. Anyone who even mentions signing another license deal like that should be flogged hehe
That and the films themselves were terribly mishandled.
One film from the short Hobbit book would have been awesome.
Two could have been good.
Three...
I fell asleep during Hobbit 2: The Padding, and have no plans to see Hobbit 3: the Last 30 Pages. And I'm not the only one. I think a bloom is well off this rose.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: That and the films themselves were terribly mishandled.
One film from the short Hobbit book would have been awesome.
Two could have been good.
Three...
I fell asleep during Hobbit 2: The Padding, and have no plans to see Hobbit 3: the Last 30 Pages. And I'm not the only one. I think a bloom is well off this rose.
Awesome, I totally agree! The second film was absolute bum cloth, and I never watched the first, as my wife informed me it was trash. I have no plans to watch the third.
I fell asleep during Hobbit 2: The Padding, and have no plans to see Hobbit 3: the Last 30 Pages. And I'm not the only one. I think a bloom is well off this rose.
You and me both.
Benedict Cumberbatch as a dragon going on, and on and on with the occasional treasureslide, then I wake to find dwarfs running all over the place with smaug going bananas trying to catch them.
I wouldn't call them trash...jeez, that's pretty harsh. It really should have been kept to two movies, though...they have way too much padding. They even went as far as making up new gak just to keep the movie running even longer and at that point I have to say "Okay, come on, really?"
I mean I love Smaug, and I like that he has a lot of screen time, but it just seems wrong to invent so much new dialogue and scenes for him, just to try and keep him in the movie as long as possible. The funniest thing to me is that the movies are long as gak, and they have so much stuff crammed into them, but they still cut out enough to make "extended editions". The Hobbit is going to have a longer combined running time than the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, I bet, and that's just insane for a story that fit pretty nicely in a single book.
But yeah, I'm still a super nerd for the movies personally, but it does feel like too much and I suppose I can't blame people for not liking it. I don't agree that they're "trash", though.
Anyway, speaking solely about the models and the game, though, I think GW killed it from the onset with their ludicrous prices. They are so far beyond what the LotR models cost it's just...even "ludicrous" doesn't seem an apt description of them. The core rulebook costs at least twice what the originals did, if not more, and when people are staring at a massive $80 investment just for the core rulebook it's no wonder the vast majority turn and run out the door. The starter set is well into triple digits and I'm pretty sure the original Mines of Moria box was at least half that, as well. A box of troops used to be something like $20 for 20 models if I'm not mistaken, may be a little off here or there, but not a bad value as far as GW products are concerned. Boxes of plastic troops for The Hobbit game are twice as much for half as many models. There's also the fact that the LotR game was actually advertised and marketed to people, whereas you likely wouldn't even know there was a Hobbit game unless you just happened to wander into a GW store and see the crap on a shelf...at which point you would laugh and walk back out the door again because they're asking you to pay $85 for three ugly Finecast trolls, and trying really, really hard to pretend that they're not just going to dump all support for the game and pretend it never existed as soon as Battle of Five Armies leaves the theater, leaving you with a dead game and a hell of a lot of money wasted.
lol, but yeah...completely made up character, too. And while I did like Tauriel it was kinda lame how she and Legolas kinda stole Bilbo's thunder in the MIrkwood fight with the spiders.
Sidstyler wrote: I wouldn't call them trash...jeez, that's pretty harsh. It really should have been kept to two movies, though...they have way too much padding. They even went as far as making up new gak just to keep the movie running even longer and at that point I have to say "Okay, come on, really?"
I mean I love Smaug, and I like that he has a lot of screen time, but it just seems wrong to invent so much new dialogue and scenes for him, just to try and keep him in the movie as long as possible. The funniest thing to me is that the movies are long as gak, and they have so much stuff crammed into them, but they still cut out enough to make "extended editions". The Hobbit is going to have a longer combined running time than the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, I bet, and that's just insane for a story that fit pretty nicely in a single book.
But yeah, I'm still a super nerd for the movies personally, but it does feel like too much and I suppose I can't blame people for not liking it. I don't agree that they're "trash", though.
Having not seen the third one, I give both Hobbits so far a 10/10 score (especially factoring in the DoS Extended Edition which does wonders for the pacing) and would rank them easily alongside LotR as the best films ever made. I honestly don't see how they could have fit so much into just 2 films, even if they added another half an hour to each to bring them up to LotR non-extended length (and for the record, Extended LotR has a much longer run-time than Extended Hobbit, I think, unless BOFA EE adds in over an hour, which I doubt), so I am very glad them made the transition to three.
As for the added stuff, almost all of it is taken and adapted from the appendices, and I'm greatful for all of it; had they stuck to the book itself, the whole thing would fall so far short of the magnificence of LotR it would be laughable.
Anyway, speaking solely about the models and the game, though, I think GW killed it from the onset with their ludicrous prices. They are so far beyond what the LotR models cost it's just...even "ludicrous" doesn't seem an apt description of them. The core rulebook costs at least twice what the originals did, if not more, and when people are staring at a massive $80 investment just for the core rulebook it's no wonder the vast majority turn and run out the door. The starter set is well into triple digits and I'm pretty sure the original Mines of Moria box was at least half that, as well. A box of troops used to be something like $20 for 20 models if I'm not mistaken, may be a little off here or there, but not a bad value as far as GW products are concerned. Boxes of plastic troops for The Hobbit game are twice as much for half as many models. There's also the fact that the LotR game was actually advertised and marketed to people, whereas you likely wouldn't even know there was a Hobbit game unless you just happened to wander into a GW store and see the crap on a shelf...at which point you would laugh and walk back out the door again because they're asking you to pay $85 for three ugly Finecast trolls, and trying really, really hard to pretend that they're not just going to dump all support for the game and pretend it never existed as soon as Battle of Five Armies leaves the theater, leaving you with a dead game and a hell of a lot of money wasted.
This, on the other hand, I agree with entirely. GW's greed is what has killed the game. They saw how fast the LotR stuff sold when the films were out, and the game was easy/cheap to get into, so assumed we'd happily pay double for the same stuff. The first strike was the halving of the box sizes, to see if we could take it, and I'd guess the reaction to that was poor enough they decided to approach the Hobbit stuff with minimal effort, hence the Finecast troops, a whole set of Thorin's Company sculpts that have never been released, and overpriced-then-free rules.
I'd rank Hobbit 1-Nothing Happens, Hobbit 2-the Padding, and Hobbit 3-the Last 30 Pages collectively as the second best Hobbit adaptation after this one:
Thanks for posting these. It really does show how GW's interest in making the series accessible to gamers has waned. As well as pricing it almost entirely solely into the collectors market, the progression from hard back rulebook, to smaller softcover to 30 page PEF is pretty telling.
As for the Hobbit films, I'm with the naysayers. I love the LoTR movies. I loved the extended versions and watch them often. I've even re-watched each of the 4 commentaries and the special features. The Hobbit films, unfortunately are a poor imitation. LoTR was a great example of taking a massive tome, and distilling the best (and most useful for the chosen narrative) parts into an excellent series of movies. The Hobbit is an example of taking a small (read "one movie") book and blowing it into three movies by cramming in more chase scenes and new-trilogy-SW-style-overblown-action sequences than one can count. It's a real shame Peter Jackson couldn't trust the Hobbit material the way he trusted the LoTR books.
My wife feels the same way as I do about the LoTR movies. Not only was she unimpressed with the first two Hobbit movies, she fell asleep while we were watching the last movie this weekend. LoTR instills in the viewer a sense of wonder. Tolkien's world is allowed to unfold in all it's beauty and the viewer is treated to a great movie experience. The Hobbit on the other hand numb the senses with meaningless and improbable action sequences and additional Jackson-created material.
Sum up, despite how much I love the LoTR movies, I'm probably going to not purchase the Hobbit. Rather, I think I'll keep LoTR in my mind and let Hobbit films fade from memory.
Paradigm wrote: I honestly don't see how they could have fit so much into just 2 films, even if they added another half an hour to each to bring them up to LotR non-extended length (and for the record, Extended LotR has a much longer run-time than Extended Hobbit, I think, unless BOFA EE adds in over an hour, which I doubt), so I am very glad them made the transition to three.
Well it's entirely possible I was talking out of my ass, then. Maybe they just felt really freaking long to me, I dunno.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: I'd rank Hobbit 1-Nothing Happens, Hobbit 2-the Padding, and Hobbit 3-the Last 30 Pages collectively as the second best Hobbit adaptation after this one:
But I don't think there are any other Hobbit adaptati-oh...
Eilif wrote: As for the Hobbit films, I'm with the naysayers. I love the LoTR movies. I loved the extended versions and watch them often. I've even re-watched each of the 4 commentaries and the special features. The Hobbit films, unfortunately are a poor imitation. LoTR was a great example of taking a massive tome, and distilling the best (and most useful for the chosen narrative) parts into an excellent series of movies. The Hobbit is an example of taking a small (read "one movie") book and blowing it into three movies by cramming in more chase scenes and new-trilogy-SW-style-overblown-action sequences than one can count. It's a real shame Peter Jackson couldn't trust the Hobbit material the way he trusted the LoTR books.
Yeah. In some ways it feels like the approach with The Hobbit was almost exactly opposite to the one they took with LotR. If I remember right Jackson did face some criticism from fanboys for cutting too much out, so maybe that's part of it. In reality though it's probably just the studio wanting to milk every penny out of it that they possibly could, or wanting to make it a trilogy just because LotR was a trilogy and made tons of money.
Could've been worse, though. They could have made The Hobbit a saga.
I hope GW gets as far away from this Hobbit rubbish as it can as soon as it can. The films were garbage and were always going to be since Hollywood saw the possibility for a new LotR trilogy.
They should pick up a license for something like Star Wars and get ready for the massive pile of steaming fan service that JJ is brewing up. Money to be made right there.
Paradigm wrote: I honestly don't see how they could have fit so much into just 2 films, even if they added another half an hour to each to bring them up to LotR non-extended length (and for the record, Extended LotR has a much longer run-time than Extended Hobbit, I think, unless BOFA EE adds in over an hour, which I doubt), so I am very glad them made the transition to three.
Well it's entirely possible I was talking out of my ass, then. Maybe they just felt really freaking long to me, I dunno. ...
…heah. In some ways it feels like the approach with The Hobbit was almost exactly opposite to the one they took with LotR. If I remember right Jackson did face some criticism from fanboys for cutting too much out, so maybe that's part of it. In reality though it's probably just the studio wanting to milk every penny out of it that they possibly could, or wanting to make it a trilogy just because LotR was a trilogy and made tons of money.
Don't sell yourself short. Your observations regarding length were spot-on.
The Hobbit could have easily have been cut down to one film and if done properly it would have been a better film than all/any of the 3 films Jackson delivered. The fanboys who demand that a book adapted for screen be detailed in it's entirety have no concept of how the medium of film works. The point of a film is NEVER to put every bit of a book on screen. The film exists to play out a set story visually in a set amount of time. When as a screenwriter or director bows to the fanboys the quality of the film almost invariably suffers.
Interestingly, listening to the writers commentary on LoTR is a how-to for successful adaptation of books for cinema. The writers are constantly talking about how they removed/skipped/rearranged sections to fit the narrative of the film. They are entirely aware that the film cannot be successful if it tries to cover every plotline in the books. They rarely add elements not present in the books and are absolutely ruthless with the cutting, even chopping parts that are known fan favorites in service to the films narrative structure. The end result is a spectacular trilogy of films and I just wish the Hobbit had been approached in the same way.
I'd much rather have one excellent Hobbit picture than 3 exercises in fantasy-action-mediocrity.
The Hobbit films have been a disappointment except in one way- the designs and costumes have been as good (for the most part) as the excellent designs and look of the LOTR trilogy. This makes it ideal for translation into miniature form. I would be all over the Hobbit plastic kits if they were priced in any way reasonably. Hell, even at current prices I've still picked up the orcs on the new wargs and the giant eagles. There is some lovely stuff there.
But the price is too high, and I think we can see that from the Escape from Goblin Town limited editions still being on sale now, three years after release. Not enough bang for your buck. Which is a shame because it used to be one of the best value for money offerings GW had.
These rules are little more than stat blocks. I read the scenarios and they are not as good as the ones presented in the old Journey books at all- a pale reflection. For one, it's movie scenarios only, whereas the older books used to provide movie or book versions to appeal to a wide variety of fans. Add to that all the Trademarking symbols everywhere and it unfortunately makes the whole thing look very tacky.
A massive disappointment, but hopefully fans will make their own scenarios and share them around. The game system is still among GW's best.
Davy: but then that would mean they couldn't have a stranglehold control of it ("The more you tighten your grip...") and they'd have to share the pie with every other single piece of SW merch put on a shop shelf or store page.
It's a real shame Peter Jackson couldn't trust the Hobbit material the way he trusted the LoTR books.
That's funny, because from what I hear about the Hobbit movies, Pyjamas treated the book with just the same amount of respect as LotR.
GW really should have thought this one through. They renewed a license to sell war games off the back of a franchise with very little war in it. I believe we all said as such at the time.
The fact that The Hobbit wasn't very good probably didn't help matters.
Da Boss wrote: The Hobbit films have been a disappointment except in one way- the designs and costumes have been as good (for the most part) as the excellent designs and look of the LOTR trilogy..
I'll agree mostly with this (though I'm not a fan of the goblintown creatures). Weta does consistently amazing design work.
It's a real shame Peter Jackson couldn't trust the Hobbit material the way he trusted the LoTR books.
That's funny, because from what I hear about the Hobbit movies, Pyjamas treated the book with just the same amount of respect as LotR.
The respect might have been there (I don't doubt for a second that he loves all 4 books), but the approach he took to writing and editing the hobbit films is completely different. Thus, the results in each trilogy are completely different.
We really should not have been surprised. Tintin was also a letdown, and King Kong was a clear telegraph of the mind-numbing action style that would be used for The Hobbit. I'm hesitant to say it, but I'm starting to see Jackson in the same way as Lucas. The director who triumphed over adversity in their blockbuster breakout trilogy, but when they've got all the power, money and backing to make their films unfettered, the results slowly became less than stellar. Of course Jackson's decline has been faster, but the comparison seems to have some validity.
The bracketed "for the most part" was me acknowledging to myself that the Goblins in Goblin Town and the baby faced giants in BotFA were not well designed
But in terms of kits, the Wood Elves, Dwarves and Orcs that were released in plastic are all excellent.
Da Boss wrote: The Hobbit films have been a disappointment except in one way- the designs and costumes have been as good (for the most part) as the excellent designs and look of the LOTR trilogy..
I'll agree mostly with this (though I'm not a fan of the goblintown creatures). Weta does consistently amazing design work.
It's a real shame Peter Jackson couldn't trust the Hobbit material the way he trusted the LoTR books.
That's funny, because from what I hear about the Hobbit movies, Pyjamas treated the book with just the same amount of respect as LotR.
The respect might have been there (I don't doubt for a second that he loves all 4 books), but the approach he took to writing and editing the hobbit films is completely different. Thus, the results in each trilogy are completely different.
We really should not have been surprised. Tintin was also a letdown, and King Kong was a clear telegraph of the mind-numbing action style that would be used for The Hobbit. I'm hesitant to say it, but I'm starting to see Jackson in the same way as Lucas. The director who triumphed over adversity in their blockbuster breakout trilogy, but when they've got all the power, money and backing to make their films unfettered, the results slowly became less than stellar. Of course Jackson's decline has been faster, but the comparison seems to have some validity.
Jackson's decline was already in full force during the RotK. He basically played it safe during the FotR where things weren't changed so much as they were removed (Which is fair enough). Then we start with things like the Elves at Helms Deep during TTs. Then we end up with things like 2 ton maces, skull vaults, and ghostly green armageddon goo.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.
I know, and I still think it was a criminally stupid decision.
I'd have entire Warhammer Fantasy Armies of LOTR Orc and Goblins if there were a compatible scale.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.
I know, and I still think it was a criminally stupid decision.
I'd have entire Warhammer Fantasy Armies of LOTR Orc and Goblins if there were a compatible scale.
It was also likely a legally required decision.
Mithril Miniatures already had -and still has- the license for 32mm LoTR wargaming miniatures. Mithril's standard for 32mm, however (based on the only two human sized ones I've owned) is 32mm to the top of the head/helmet which is almost spot-on 28mm to-the-eye, the aproximate scale of GW minis.
Thus, even if GW had wanted to, I doubt (though I don't know for sure) that they would have been legally allowed to make 28mm. Even though they don't match the Jackson concepts and have a different style, all the Mithril LoTR minis I've seen are quite nice.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dawnbringer wrote: [q
Jackson's decline was already in full force during the RotK. He basically played it safe during the FotR where things weren't changed so much as they were removed (Which is fair enough). Then we start with things like the Elves at Helms Deep during TTs. Then we end up with things like 2 ton maces, skull vaults, and ghostly green armageddon goo.
That's a very good point. There are definitely some incredulity-inducing elements throughout the whole LoTR series (Legolas surfing down stairs on a shield while shooting…), but they are fewer in number and spaced throughout what is overall a much better trilogy. In the Hobbit, the boundaries of credulity seem to be stretched every other scene and Jackson-additions appear where they just aren't necessary.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.
I assumed New Line required GW to use a realistic scale so models didn't look like bobble headed freaks more than anything. Warhammer's human models are pretty derpy looking (though the hero scale works fine for Orcs/Skaven/Lizardmen/etc).
I like the LOTR scale, while it'd be nice to have crossover, I'm happier that they aren't derpy looking.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.
I assumed New Line required GW to use a realistic scale so models didn't look like bobble headed freaks more than anything. Warhammer's human models are pretty derpy looking (though the hero scale works fine for Orcs/Skaven/Lizardmen/etc).
I like the LOTR scale, while it'd be nice to have crossover, I'm happier that they aren't derpy looking.
Yeah, I think it had more to do with the models required to actually look like humans (IIRC for most of the LotR range, and I presume the Hobbit range, they had to be signed off as looking enough like the actors) than for incompatibility. I also think it was a bit of a natural effect of having the Perrys do most of the range.
Dawnbringer wrote: [q
Jackson's decline was already in full force during the RotK. He basically played it safe during the FotR where things weren't changed so much as they were removed (Which is fair enough). Then we start with things like the Elves at Helms Deep during TTs. Then we end up with things like 2 ton maces, skull vaults, and ghostly green armageddon goo.
That's a very good point. There are definitely some incredulity-inducing elements throughout the whole LoTR series (Legolas surfing down stairs on a shield while shooting…), but they are fewer in number and spaced throughout what is overall a much better trilogy. In the Hobbit, the boundaries of credulity seem to be stretched every other scene and Jackson-additions appear where they just aren't necessary.
Oh, I know it gets worse in the Hobbit. I just wanted it noted that the rot began back in 2003.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.
I assumed New Line required GW to use a realistic scale so models didn't look like bobble headed freaks more than anything. Warhammer's human models are pretty derpy looking (though the hero scale works fine for Orcs/Skaven/Lizardmen/etc).
I like the LOTR scale, while it'd be nice to have crossover, I'm happier that they aren't derpy looking.
That is an issue with proportion not scale. 54mm scale models from other companies are exceedingly realistic.
The second hobbit was pretty terrible. Legolas continues to slaughter orcs, oh now he's handily dispatching the orc chief. It felt like he was killing orcs for at least an hour. YAWN
Yes, we get it, Legolas is god, just have him kill smog too by shooting a bunch of arrows from his rapid fire machine gun bow through the dragon's eye into it's brain then he can blast off into outer space using his rocket boots and bro fist gandalf who also happens to be flying up there then the two of them can go battle Darth Maul. (Ok, that would be kinda awesome)
Flashman wrote: GW really should have thought this one through. They renewed a license to sell war games off the back of a franchise with very little war in it. I believe we all said as such at the time.
I was definitely of that mind, yeah. The story in The Hobbit doesn't lend itself well to a mass battle game...hell, even Lord of the Rings is kind of a stretch to be honest, with most of the action following a small D&D-esque group of adventurers going on side quests and getting into small skirmishes, and then later participating in two or three major battles. The Hobbit is even worse for it because it essentially is a D&D-game up until the very end with the Battle of Five Armies. And I'm not even sure how practical that battle would be to try and actually play out, you would need a massive table and it would be a five player free-for-all, basically.
So The Hobbit models basically only ever had appeal as collector's pieces to paint and display, but even most of them were put off because of the ridiculous prices. My dad is probably the ideal customer for Hobbit minis, because he's one of those types who would be more interested in just having the models based on his favorite characters than playing a game with them, but when I told him how much they were even he was like "Nah, that's crazy, I'll pass."
Jackson's decline was already in full force during the RotK. He basically played it safe during the FotR where things weren't changed so much as they were removed (Which is fair enough). Then we start with things like the Elves at Helms Deep during TTs. Then we end up with things like 2 ton maces, skull vaults, and ghostly green armageddon goo.
That's a very good point. There are definitely some incredulity-inducing elements throughout the whole LoTR series (Legolas surfing down stairs on a shield while shooting…), but they are fewer in number and spaced throughout what is overall a much better trilogy. In the Hobbit, the boundaries of credulity seem to be stretched every other scene and Jackson-additions appear where they just aren't necessary.
Yeah, Legolas surfing down the stairs was kinda stupid looking back on it now, but at the time I thought it was awesome (I was also much younger). Some of the less over-the-top moments are still really cool though, like Legolas stabbing an orc with an arrow before loading the arrow into his bow and killing another orc with the same arrow. Stuff like that helps to sell elves as really skilled fighters and bowmen without making them look like gods. But it definitely helps that moments like that are a little rarer in LotR.
In the Hobbit, though...there's pretty much the entire escape from Goblin Town (there was even a Wilhelm scream at one point) with just one absurd thing after another, the entire scene with the barrels floating down the river (and that one dwarf, I think it was Bombur, popping out of the barrel and becoming a whirling death machine, come the feth on...it was still funny but for all the wrong reasons), Thorin belly-surfing down a river of molten gold...in fact I'd probably say that entire Smaug encounter was pretty damn absurd. I dunno, there's just too much this time around, and I'm already of the opinion that there's way too much movie on top of that, so it's more than a little annoying to think that all the extra, pointless length was done for the sake of fitting in this ridiculously over-the-top action that we really didn't need to see.
Not to say that The Hobbit shouldn't have had some humor in it, in fact I always liked The Hobbit more than LotR specifically because it was a little more light-hearted and fun overall compared to the dark and depressing storyline of LotR. But did we really need BARRELTRON?
SlaveToDorkness wrote: New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.
I assumed New Line required GW to use a realistic scale so models didn't look like bobble headed freaks more than anything. Warhammer's human models are pretty derpy looking (though the hero scale works fine for Orcs/Skaven/Lizardmen/etc).
I like the LOTR scale, while it'd be nice to have crossover, I'm happier that they aren't derpy looking.
Agreed, the LotR models definitely benefited from not being made in the same "style", I guess. More realistic proportions makes for much better models. If they all looked like the WHF humans then I don't think they would have had the same appeal to people who weren't already WHF fans, and probably wouldn't have sold as well.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.
I assumed New Line required GW to use a realistic scale so models didn't look like bobble headed freaks more than anything. Warhammer's human models are pretty derpy looking (though the hero scale works fine for Orcs/Skaven/Lizardmen/etc).
I like the LOTR scale, while it'd be nice to have crossover, I'm happier that they aren't derpy looking.
That is an issue with proportion not scale. 54mm scale models from other companies are exceedingly realistic.
It's mostly just semantics. The word "scale" is often used in a way that encompasses proportions as well as actual length ratios, for example "28 mm heroic scale" describes both the size of the model and the bobbleheadedness.
Bobbleheaded models tend to not look good next to properly proportioned models even if you do match the size.
I've been playing 40k for over 15 years. I loved the lotr movies and bought a ton of the models for painting/displaying (wanted to play but no one seems to play lotr or the hobbit in central Wisconsin... seems like people only collect/paint this stuff). The models really are great, and are very realistic/better compared to fantasy or 40k. I'd love for 40k to be more realistic like the artwork in shield of baal-exterminus, etc but that'll probably never happen.
I'm glad they made smaug (great model) and I will own a copy one day... Just couldn't justify spending several hundred dollars on myself at Christmas time. I think it is hilarious that several sharks bought him and put him on ebay for $700-$800 when games workshop is going to be selling more smaugs in January for far less. As for the rules, I'm glad they are cheap or free depending on how one wants them (kudos GW).
I hope they still support the line for several years as the stuff really is great. The only thing that hurt lotr/the hobbit is FINECAST. Worst... financial... decision... ever... for GW.
Still think that LotR is GW's best rules system by a long shot. Pity they decided to increase prices by more than 100% (right now, they are at what? 200% of the original price or sth.?) a few years ago, else it would have been a great and very popular game.
Yeah, Legolas surfing down the stairs was kinda stupid looking back on it now, but at the time I thought it was awesome (I was also much younger). Some of the less over-the-top moments are still really cool though, like Legolas stabbing an orc with an arrow before loading the arrow into his bow and killing another orc with the same arrow. Stuff like that helps to sell elves as really skilled fighters and bowmen without making them look like gods. But it definitely helps that moments like that are a little rarer in LotR.
In the Hobbit, though...
Spoiler:
there's pretty much the entire escape from Goblin Town (there was even a Wilhelm scream at one point) with just one absurd thing after another, the entire scene with the barrels floating down the river (and that one dwarf, I think it was Bombur, popping out of the barrel and becoming a whirling death machine, come the feth on...it was still funny but for all the wrong reasons), Thorin belly-surfing down a river of molten gold...in fact I'd probably say that entire Smaug encounter was pretty damn absurd. I dunno, there's just too much this time around, and I'm already of the opinion that there's way too much movie on top of that, so it's more than a little annoying to think that
all the extra, pointless length was done for the sake of fitting in this ridiculously over-the-top action that we really didn't need to see.
Not to say that The Hobbit shouldn't have had some humor in it, in fact I always liked The Hobbit more than LotR specifically because it was a little more light-hearted and fun overall compared to the dark and depressing storyline of LotR. But did we really need BARRELTRON?
Preciesely. It's ok to have a bit of stupid mixed in. When Legolas surfs down the stairs, it's dramatic (even a little bit cool), because it's not happening every other scene. As to the hobbit, I agree that humor would be essential, but not ridiculousness.
It's all about balance. If crazy doesn't happen every other scene then the whole film is more engaging, the action scenes are more exciting, and when something extra-heroic happens, it actually feels heroic rather than "meh".
I mean I love Smaug, and I like that he has a lot of screen time, but it just seems wrong to invent so much new dialogue and scenes for him, just to try and keep him in the movie as long as possible.
Sigvatr wrote: Still think that LotR is GW's best rules system by a long shot. Pity they decided to increase prices by more than 100% (right now, they are at what? 200% of the original price or sth.?) a few years ago, else it would have been a great and very popular game.
This.
They killed it with the price increases. LotR may not have been to everyone's tastes, and there was (and still is) a lot of resentment from 40k and WHB players for "taking up resources" or whatever, but it got a lot of new people in the door, was cheap to get into, fun and well-written. Post-RotK it came in line for the usual GW shenanigans and they started to choke the life out of it with the price increases (halving the boxes, finecast). With the first Hobbit film they thought their market of "collectors" would pay anything they asked (remember the price of the HB rulebook?)- and it simply didn't happen, while simultaneously being overpriced for the (potential) new younger players attracted by the new film. Low sales = low support and the game then disappeared up it's own arsehole.
It really is. LOTR did a lot of stuff right, despite irrational hatred from some WFB and 40K fans. It was a fun and elegant rules system that had good tactical depth without the bloated complexity of GW's legacy rules. It also had a brilliant and coherent aesthetic.
But as you say, GW strangled it with price increases. It used to be around £15 for 24 Mirkwood Elves. Then it was £15 for 12. When the new Hobbit Mirkwood Rangers came out (which are lovely, dynamic sculpts) they were £25 for 10. Even if (like me) you love the game and the setting, you just can't justify it!
Sigvatr wrote: Still think that LotR is GW's best rules system by a long shot.
Perhaps only when viewing it in the context of currently available games, to buy new.
I think several of the now defunct games - Epic, Battlefleet Gothic, Necromunda/Mordheim have better mechanics and are more interesting to the player as a 'wargame' in terms of the tactical input they involve.
Always thought LoTR probably appealed due it not being a horribly bloated mess of a rules system, which would probably look good if your only experience of wargaming is to have played later editions of 40k or WFB.
While all are fun games, in my view they each suffer from problems. Necro and Mordheim are really fun, great games, but they are also pretty badly balanced depending on what you allow. Playing Necro or Mordheim is a different experience to playing a Wargame because they are pretty pure narrative campaign games. Gothic is a wonderful game too, I've had lots of fun playing it at times. But again, it was unbalanced by certain lists (the necron list for example) and even before such lists were added, only Chaos vs Imperials was actually balanced.
For those of us seeking a game that straddled the narrative and competitive aspects of gaming while being fairly easy to play and still having a high degree of granularity, LOTR was a great system. I would rate it above any other GW system I have played, while acknowledging that many specialist games were very fun. I've never played Epic though, so perhaps that beats it.
All subjective of course, but LOTR is to me their best game and I am not coming from a perspective of ignorance- I've played lots of their specialist games, as well as Fantasy and 40K.
Sigvatr wrote: Still think that LotR is GW's best rules system by a long shot. Pity they decided to increase prices by more than 100% (right now, they are at what? 200% of the original price or sth.?) a few years ago, else it would have been a great and very popular game.
This.
They killed it with the price increases. LotR may not have been to everyone's tastes, and there was (and still is) a lot of resentment from 40k and WHB players for "taking up resources" or whatever, but it got a lot of new people in the door, was cheap to get into, fun and well-written. Post-RotK it came in line for the usual GW shenanigans and they started to choke the life out of it with the price increases (halving the boxes, finecast). With the first Hobbit film they thought their market of "collectors" would pay anything they asked (remember the price of the HB rulebook?)- and it simply didn't happen, while simultaneously being overpriced for the (potential) new younger players attracted by the new film. Low sales = low support and the game then disappeared up it's own arsehole.
It's a shame. A real shame.
I'm hoping The Hobbit was a moment of realisation "oh wait, maybe our customers AREN'T price insensitive". However I think GW are too stupid and possibly not even realise the price has been an insane barrier to both new players and existing LOTR fans.
But it is such a travesty what GW have done with LOTR and The Hobbit, such a good set of minis with a good set of rules and and avid fan base and such potential just destroyed by poor management.
Sidstyler wrote:
I was definitely of that mind, yeah. The story in The Hobbit doesn't lend itself well to a mass battle game...hell, even Lord of the Rings is kind of a stretch to be honest, with most of the action following a small D&D-esque group of adventurers going on side quests and getting into small skirmishes, and then later participating in two or three major battles. The Hobbit is even worse for it because it essentially is a D&D-game up until the very end with the Battle of Five Armies. And I'm not even sure how practical that battle would be to try and actually play out, you would need a massive table and it would be a five player free-for-all, basically.
Well, to keep at least part of this post on-topic, there's the question if the LotR 'engine' could be considered a mass-battle game... With the concentration on individual and individually-based models and characters, and the use of - what? A couple of dozen models? Three dozen? Four? - I'd personally say 'no'. And of course that's what the War of the Ring rules were supposed to address, though those weren't as well made, and at the least missing a bit of the point by concentrating on characters and the fancy special rules they brought along to their units. In both cases I think the perception of WFB - with it's singled-out wound-marker models, it's reliance on herohammering, and it's special rules bloat - as a 'standard' mass battle game, throws things off.
On the topic of the battles themselves: I know this won't appeal too much to fans of the movies (maybe moreso fans of the books, with more tantalising glimpses of backstory, a honking great set of appendicies, and more books dealing with lost or unfinished tales and ancient jewels that make the One Ring look like something out of a Christmas cracker... But I digress) but I've often thought that in terms of wargaming, you might be better off focussing on Middle-Earth rather than The Lord of the Rings. More on the setting than the story, that is. Not to say ignore the big battles, far from it, but also explore the minor what-if battles and other 'documented' battles that took place just before and during the D&D plot, rather than focussing on just how hard Vigo Mortensson can glower or how much Orlando Bloom jumps about like a wooden-faced cricket.
A little more like a historical wargame, maybe; and although I can imagine allergic reactions to that also, to their rare commendation I get the feeling GW was trying for something like that, with various factions and scenario books. Personally, I gotta say one little ambition of mine is to run a campaign of the War of Orcs and Dwarves sometime, the one that ran up and down the Misty Mountains before the events of the Hobbit. (As in, just based on what snippets and outlines the Prof and Christopher let through, not any of PJ's overlong CGI'd set-pieces, and definitely no dwarf-tossing) If I can get suitable minis and rules, not necessarily GW's, or for the official LotR game.
On that note, and also on the topic of mass battle rules: remember the last time GW did the Battle of Five Armies? Repackaged Warmaster rules with strips of plastic 10mm figures. The strips were some of the best 10mm minis made, IMO, and I'd love to gather enough of those to do that campaign (I have other rules options these days); if only the boxes weren't rapidly snapped up. Old second-hand ones still sell for a minor fortune on ebay.
On the flipside, I'm having much more success buying up old 28mm uruk-hai for cheap.
Eilif wrote:
Preciesely. It's ok to have a bit of stupid mixed in. When Legolas surfs down the stairs, it's dramatic (even a little bit cool), because it's not happening every other scene.
Mmnope, don't agree. You could also say that when there's little ridiculousness in other scenes, ridiculousness like Lebrolas shield-surfing sticks out like a rusty nail.
'Least, that's how it felt to me.
Pacific wrote:
I think several of the now defunct games - Epic, Battlefleet Gothic, Necromunda/Mordheim have better mechanics and are more interesting to the player as a 'wargame' in terms of the tactical input they involve.
Yisss.
Da Boss wrote:I've played Gothic, Mordheim and Necromunda.
While all are fun games, in my view they each suffer from problems. Necro and Mordheim are really fun, great games, but they are also pretty badly balanced depending on what you allow. Playing Necro or Mordheim is a different experience to playing a Wargame because they are pretty pure narrative campaign games. Gothic is a wonderful game too, I've had lots of fun playing it at times. But again, it was unbalanced by certain lists (the necron list for example) and even before such lists were added, only Chaos vs Imperials was actually balanced.
I haven't played Mordheim, and TBH I found Necro a little dull and 40Kish (*braces for impact*), but I've also played BFG, Blood Bowl, and Epic:A. Those experiences showed me what cluttered, confused piles 40K and WFB really were. I back Pacific's statement, as well as every time someone types out the 'GW dumped SGs, now they're losing that market segment to other companies' bit, because that's precisely how it happened with me. That GW is now kicking another (their last?) good ruleset to the kerb isn't too surprising, and I expect something of the same reaction from gamers, too.
wuestenfux wrote: Killed it with price increases?
Nobody in our gaming group ever played it.
Ah, well, just based on your anecdotal evidence lets completely disregard all the other evidence that pointed to massive sales when it first came out.
For something more productive I'd say the LotR rules are just about perfect for the scale they were meant for ~20-30 figures aside. They work beyond that but it can bog down a little. I appreciate the strength of some of the old specialist rules (Epic, Warmaster) but I can't say I've ever been tempted to try out Mordhiem in place of LotR for Fantasy skirmish.
No, no. He's right. On a similar note, my group never played Warmachine or Hordes either, and we all know that PP went under since those games were abject failures, right?
Anecdotal evidence for the win!
Da Boss wrote: I've played Gothic, Mordheim and Necromunda.
While all are fun games, in my view they each suffer from problems. Necro and Mordheim are really fun, great games, but they are also pretty badly balanced depending on what you allow. Playing Necro or Mordheim is a different experience to playing a Wargame because they are pretty pure narrative campaign games. Gothic is a wonderful game too, I've had lots of fun playing it at times. But again, it was unbalanced by certain lists (the necron list for example) and even before such lists were added, only Chaos vs Imperials was actually balanced.
For those of us seeking a game that straddled the narrative and competitive aspects of gaming while being fairly easy to play and still having a high degree of granularity, LOTR was a great system. I would rate it above any other GW system I have played, while acknowledging that many specialist games were very fun. I've never played Epic though, so perhaps that beats it.
Completely agree with this - Necro and Mordheim are fun but in basic form can be imbalanced, and a few of the mechanics don't work well. There are numerous fan-made updates though which should be recommended to anyone wanting to try the games.
BFG is a great game also, but like Blood Bowl I think is starting to creak a little bit with age (am I allowed to say that? ) It feels a little bit like watching films from the 60's nowadays, which seem very slow compared to modern efforts where you have to have things exploding every 5 seconds to keep your attention. Still a fine experience, but there are other games which offer a sharper experience.
You should try Epic though! (Armageddon), honestly think it's the best game GW have ever made - really tactical, 'epic' in terms of the scale and the gaming experience, its ten times the game 'Armageddon' professes to be.
The rule system used by the LotR games did for a short time (sadly!) find a great home with Warhammer Historical, where it brought to live the Wild West and whatnot.
I loved lotr when it first came out. Models were reasonably priced and no magazine kept interest giving you new models and scenarios for a great price. Now prices are too high for me to pick up anything new and what I do pick up will be select characters.
In terms of the hobbit films I think they are ok nothing more. I loved the lotr films but the hobbit films feel to drawn out for me with too many scenes that feel like they were designed to be a universal studios ride rather than a scene from a movie.
Haven't seen the final film in the hobbit trilogy though.
Waaargh wrote: I enjoyed The Hobbit trilogy and am eager for the extended version of BotFA. Extended DoS is good you say? Must watch it then.
Very good. More Beorn, more Laketown, more Dol Guldur and more Mirkwood. The pacing of the first half improves dramatically once you add in the extra stuff; without it I thought it was a little rushed.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: I'd rank Hobbit 1-Nothing Happens, Hobbit 2-the Padding, and Hobbit 3-the Last 30 Pages collectively as the second best Hobbit adaptation after this one:
All this is good news Kid Kyoto. The Tolkien Estate was warming to Peter Jackson, now with JRRT spinning in his grave his chances of getting to buy and butcher a license for Silmarillion content is close to zero.
The Hobbit cartoon was good for its time, though the ugly forest elves didnt make sense in Tolkien lore, they looked more twisted than the goblins.
the lotr sbg is a skirmish story based game, and works well in this setting, not even following the story of the fellowship, though that s fun ive played many times,
i wouldnt call it a mass battles game, and the scenarios ive played from helms deep and pellenor have only been sections or scenes rather than the full battle, it would be slow and draining to me.
on the plus side if you dont like the price of the hobbit minis there are loads of lotr minis you can proxy with, ive used dwarf rangers to represent thorins company and a human ranger for bard, it all available to you in the lotr line for however long it lasts,
i am very sad its dwindling and must admit where i live there is only 2-3 people who will play, the rules system is fantastic, i play games from many systems inluding whf and have played 40k and i agree lotr is best in what it does,and
i find the problem is many gamers allow gw to dominate the market for them and are often ignorant of the quality of other games and how much they will enjoy them, a common excuse i hear is "i already spend heaps on warhammer i cant afford to get into another game", most games i play cost me 40-50$au to get into and have spent alil more here and there, whf/40k are well into the hundreds, the sheer lack of interest in playing games other than warhamer is astounding but from what ive seen here there is still a large fan base for lotr which gives me a sigh of releif that it will still continue
as cool as it would be to have a series of films of the silmarilion, they would break them, and the tolkein estate will never sell out.
andwho says you cannot re-enact those scenes with the lotr line
Very good. More Beorn, more Laketown, more Dol Guldur and more Mirkwood. The pacing of the first half improves dramatically once you add in the extra stuff; without it I thought it was a little rushed.
R...really? I couldn't stand how boringly slowly that movie went, and I'm a fan of many a glacially slow drama... I can't imagine how more would have helped that movie.
BrookM wrote: The rule system used by the LotR games did for a short time (sadly!) find a great home with Warhammer Historical, where it brought to live the Wild West and whatnot.
The LotR system as put out by WarHam Historicals has proved very popular within the historical side of things. There are often articles in Warhames Illustrated where on of the many iterations of that ruleset are used for example. The Legends of the Highseas version often being used for anything from ACW to Napoleonic Skirmishes.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: I'd rank Hobbit 1-Nothing Happens, Hobbit 2-the Padding, and Hobbit 3-the Last 30 Pages collectively as the second best Hobbit adaptation after this one:
All this is good news Kid Kyoto. The Tolkien Estate was warming to Peter Jackson, now with JRRT spinning in his grave his chances of getting to buy and butcher a license for Silmarillion content is close to zero.
The Hobbit cartoon was good for its time, though the ugly forest elves didnt make sense in Tolkien lore, they looked more twisted than the goblins.
Once Christopher Tolkien passes away (which will be soon - he's 90 after all) it won't take long for the estate to licence the Silmarillion to the highest bidder. Perhaps with some kind of creative control clause that the studios will ignore in their usual dodgy-dealing way.
I remeber when GW first grabbed the liscence out from under Mithril to make LOR miniatures. Mithril was pissed and crucified GW as the "Evil Empire", and went on about their business practices.
It was pretty ugly stuff.
Very good. More Beorn, more Laketown, more Dol Guldur and more Mirkwood. The pacing of the first half improves dramatically once you add in the extra stuff; without it I thought it was a little rushed.
R...really? I couldn't stand how boringly slowly that movie went, and I'm a fan of many a glacially slow drama... I can't imagine how more would have helped that movie.
I guess it's just a difference in opinion/expectation. I thought the first half hour of the cinema release was far too rushed, can't think of any of the film as slow to be honest. The EE added in so much that I felt was missing from that, including several key bits from the book.
But then I am perfectly happy with 3h+ films and consider the PJ LOTR/Hobbit movies to be just about the most amazing films ever made.
There's actually an article in this months Wargames Soldier and Strategy about the I'm pact of Warhammer on Historicals. It's quite interesting but incorrectly indicates the Warhammer system being used for the plethora of Warhammer Historicals systems that actually used te LotRs system.
Very good. More Beorn, more Laketown, more Dol Guldur and more Mirkwood. The pacing of the first half improves dramatically once you add in the extra stuff; without it I thought it was a little rushed.
R...really? I couldn't stand how boringly slowly that movie went, and I'm a fan of many a glacially slow drama... I can't imagine how more would have helped that movie.
I was all astonishment during The Desolation of Smaug since it seemed like the script team had gotten their hands on a map of Middle Earth and a list of names of people along the route of the fellowship - that was all they got. They filled in all the gaps with silly action scenes and totally over the top chases that lasted for far too long. This ultimately made them wast wonderful scenes from the book. Like when they trick Beorn to let them stay, or when Bilbo talks to Smaug (why would Smaug let himself act like some rabbid dog, chasing the dwarves around the mountain btw!?).
The only good thing about the Hobbit movies (granted I haven't watched the last one) and the LotR movies is the scenery. Really cool places that really gets your imagination going!
And this alone, the chance to make excellent scenery, could make me play these games, but I know of no-one else that plays them and the minis aren't really all that great looking.
As movies go, I won't be watching them again any time soon. To me they are little more than perfect examples of how you use action scenes to dumb down and get in the way of good stories.
For all the people who are complaining about what Peter Jackson did, all I want to see is you do a better job and make the millions/billions he did. No matter how bad he did, I am sure he did the job and made the millions/billions of dollars doing a bad job or a crap job as some of you guys say.
Now we can say GW did a bad job on how they handled The Hobbit and not make the millions. Unlike PJ who has done a bad job as people say but still made millions GW did a bad job and not make millions. Now there is something we can say that is relevant to this thread instead of how bad the movies are. So with GW releasing the rules for free and nobody cares, is because for me, it's too little too late. Now if the prices were Lord of the Rings prices and the same quantity in the box then I would come back. Now with 1/2 the content and 1/3 of the price (which translates to a price increase) is why I don't care anymore. Rules that should have been in the small rule book in the box set in the beginning is another reason why I left. I hated being nickled and dime to death, or more like $50 and $100 to death.
Very good. More Beorn, more Laketown, more Dol Guldur and more Mirkwood. The pacing of the first half improves dramatically once you add in the extra stuff; without it I thought it was a little rushed.
R...really? I couldn't stand how boringly slowly that movie went, and I'm a fan of many a glacially slow drama... I can't imagine how more would have helped that movie.
I was all astonishment during The Desolation of Smaug since it seemed like the script team had gotten their hands on a map of Middle Earth and a list of names of people along the route of the fellowship - that was all they got. They filled in all the gaps with silly action scenes and totally over the top chases that lasted for far too long. This ultimately made them wast wonderful scenes from the book. Like when they trick Beorn to let them stay, or when Bilbo talks to Smaug (why would Smaug let himself act like some rabbid dog, chasing the dwarves around the mountain btw!?).
The only good thing about the Hobbit movies (granted I haven't watched the last one) and the LotR movies is the scenery. Really cool places that really gets your imagination going!
And this alone, the chance to make excellent scenery, could make me play these games, but I know of no-one else that plays them and the minis aren't really all that great looking.
As movies go, I won't be watching them again any time soon. To me they are little more than perfect examples of how you use action scenes to dumb down and get in the way of good stories.
Well, I don't think I could disagree more with any of that, but at the end of the day it's all opinion. I'm far more interested in seeing a representation of the setting of Middle Earth (which all the films do spectacularly, I think) than a word-for-word retelling of the books, and barring the removal of the Scouring of the Shire in RotK, there's not a single addition, change or ommission that detracts from the film in my mind.
I don't think there ever has been, or ever will be for a few decades (if ever) a series of films that will eclipse the epicness, scale, visual spectacle or excellent storytelling of the Middle Earth saga.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Was there something about a dropping a whole statue of molten gold on Benedict? Or was I just dreaming?
I remember a hawt redhead. That I do remember.
And then CumberSmaug got up and flew away as if nothing happened, assuring the entire audience that, yes, the last 20 minutes of screen time were entirely without point or purpose.
Davor wrote: For all the people who are complaining about what Peter Jackson did, all I want to see is you do a better job and make the millions/billions he did. No matter how bad he did, I am sure he did the job and made the millions/billions of dollars doing a bad job or a crap job as some of you guys say.
That's a fallacious argument. You don't need to direct a Hollywood blockbuster in order to have a valid opinion on the quality of a film.
Hell, if that were the case then you might as well shut down this and every other thread on the forum as precious few of us are going to have the authority to speak about pretty much anything.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.
No, not at all actually. Rick Priestly pitched the whole concept to GW before the company even approached New Line about a license, including doing it in a different scale which would allow more true-to-scale proportions, and use less material for a cheaper product.
Why do you think GW forced Priestly out of the design studio? GW got pissed about LotR when the bubble burst, and blamed it on Priestly, quite flagrantly ignoring the fact that it was a huge, unprecedentedly successful money earner for the company that GW eventually bungled with poor support after the hype from Return of the King died down.
Fellowship really was the best of them. It is, on the whole, a very well-constructed film. For example, if you follow the final sequence shot for shot, the fellowship peels away from Frodo in reverse order. First goes Boromir (Rivendell), then goes Aragorn (Bree), then Merry and Pippin (road to Bree), then finally Sam (Hobbiton). The film has a wonderful climax, and the narrative is resolved nicely and satisfyingly while leaving itself open to the sequel. Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas running off to "hunt some orc" is almost an homage to Darth Vader gaining control over his TIE and flying off at the end of A New Hope.
That screenshot is very much like the view of 'An Unexpected Party' in my mind's eye since I was about 11 or 12. Only Bilbo was a bit more... Kenneth Connor, maybe, rather than podling.
Azazelx wrote:Once Christopher Tolkien passes away (which will be soon - he's 90 after all) it won't take long for the estate to licence the Silmarillion to the highest bidder. Perhaps with some kind of creative control clause that the studios will ignore in their usual dodgy-dealing way.
No! No! Shut up! Why do you say these things? Just stop... stop it...
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I've never heard anyone say it was a good read and can't imagine someone paying more than a buck-oh-five for it.
You need to talk to more than a dozen people.
Not when there's books like Faferd and Grey Mouser around.
Fafhrd. And Pfff(hrd). Turin Turambar would 'ave 'em.
notprop wrote:There's actually an article in this months Wargames Soldier and Strategy about the I'm pact of Warhammer on Historicals. It's quite interesting but incorrectly indicates the Warhammer system being used for the plethora of Warhammer Historicals systems that actually used te LotRs system.
Now I enjoy historical games myself, but a lot of historical gamers are still scratching their heads and harrumphing over this 'goblins and wizards' fad the kids go for. Expecting them to be able to distinguish between fantasy gaming systems is like expecting your octogenarian grandad to distinguish between an X-Station and a Playbox.
Davor wrote:For all the people who are complaining about what Peter Jackson did, all I want to see is you do a better job and make the millions/billions he did. No matter how bad he did, I am sure he did the job and made the millions/billions of dollars doing a bad job or a crap job as some of you guys say.
What Sidstyler said. Also, talk to the studios. Give me a budget. All I gotta do is have a tiny bit of respect for characters and themes, a lack of a fetish for interminable chase scenes, a dearth of cringeworthy americanisms, and at least half an inkling of what the word 'subtlety' means.
People rave about PJ's success: they seem to forget that his biggest successes were already hugely popular, iconic stories, and that otherwise he's most famous for cheap, garbled splatterhouse flicks with sumatran rat-monkeys.
weeble1000 wrote:Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas running off to "hunt some orc" is almost an homage to Darth Vader gaining control over his TIE and flying off at the end of A New Hope.
No! No! Shut up! Why do you say these things? Just stop... stop it...
Da Boss wrote: The LOTR films have some problems, but I don't think people were saying they were terrible. Lay off the hyperbole.
I love the LOTR movies but I can admit that they have some pretty deep flaws, especially the second and third movies.
+1. I'm not quite so enthusiastic but basically the same opinion- I think the LotR movies were okay (but overrated). I actually respect them a lot more after seeing the Hobbit movies, because of how much worse I felt the Hobbit ones were and I'm glad LotR didn't get the same poor treatment.
If previous fans are now saying the LotR movies were not great, I can only imagine the dazzle is wearing off like a henna tattoo, and The Hobbit is the cheese grater helping the process along. Took a while - see how quick it wore off King Kong, by comparison.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.
No, not at all actually. Rick Priestly pitched the whole concept to GW before the company even approached New Line about a license, including doing it in a different scale which would allow more true-to-scale proportions, and use less material for a cheaper product.
Why do you think GW forced Priestly out of the design studio? GW got pissed about LotR when the bubble burst, and blamed it on Priestly, quite flagrantly ignoring the fact that it was a huge, unprecedentedly successful money earner for the company that GW eventually bungled with poor support after the hype from Return of the King died down.
SlaveToDorkness wrote: New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.
No, not at all actually. Rick Priestly pitched the whole concept to GW before the company even approached New Line about a license, including doing it in a different scale which would allow more true-to-scale proportions, and use less material for a cheaper product.
Why do you think GW forced Priestly out of the design studio? GW got pissed about LotR when the bubble burst, and blamed it on Priestly, quite flagrantly ignoring the fact that it was a huge, unprecedentedly successful money earner for the company that GW eventually bungled with poor support after the hype from Return of the King died down.
<citation needed>
The horse's mouth. I can't direct you to any documentary evidence, but in almost 1900 posts, when have I lied?
Waaargh wrote: I enjoyed The Hobbit trilogy and am eager for the extended version of BotFA. Extended DoS is good you say? Must watch it then.
Very good. More Beorn, more Laketown, more Dol Guldur and more Mirkwood. The pacing of the first half improves dramatically once you add in the extra stuff; without it I thought it was a little rushed.
Interesting observations. If they'd put the stuff you mention in the original movie and dropped the overblown action sequences and Jackson-additions, they might have had a decent trio of pictures.
At some point I will probably rent the extended versions, but right now the theater versions have got me so sore on the whole trilogy that I'd rather get some distance (a few years should do it.) from the films before a second try.
I think the problem for me is the stark difference in my experience of the films. I went in to LoTR expecting a pretty good movie and was blown away. I loved it and didn't feel (despite some flaws) that the second two were at all a let down. 3 satisfying movies in a row is a pretty great run.
On the other hand, I went into the Hobbit expecting a good movie (as soon as I heard it was a trilogy, I never expected greatness) and got something less. The 2nd and 3rd films were even poorer experiences and the whole thing seems like a waste of $50.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can someone explain these "Jackson-additions" to me?
Basically the movies added a bunch of extraneous to a lot of scenes- cartoonish henchmen, Legolas and Filler Elf getting more screentime than the Dwarven party, and ridiculous stuff like Human bows, rivers of gold, barrel level, etc. At points it feels like it was a licenced game which had had extra playtime added.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can someone explain these "Jackson-additions" to me?
Basically the movies added a bunch of extraneous to a lot of scenes- cartoonish henchmen, Legolas and Filler Elf getting more screentime than the Dwarven party, and ridiculous stuff like Human bows, rivers of gold, barrel level, etc. At points it feels like it was a licenced game which had had extra playtime added.
The last movie was terrible. What should have been 15 minutes at the end of #2 turned into 2.5 hours of plot-free fight and battle scenes that had no relevance to the book. Nor, really, did it make sense (how do a dozen dwarves defend the mountain, and why did their entering the battle have any impact on the final outcome :X
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can someone explain these "Jackson-additions" to me?
Basically the movies added a bunch of extraneous to a lot of scenes- cartoonish henchmen, Legolas and Filler Elf getting more screentime than the Dwarven party, and ridiculous stuff like Human bows, rivers of gold, barrel level, etc. At points it feels like it was a licenced game which had had extra playtime added.
I will not have you badmouth Hawt Redhead Elf. She's the best dang thing about this trilogy.
In other news my sister got me a gift vertificate so 'I would have not excuse' not to see it.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can someone explain these "Jackson-additions" to me?
Basically the movies added a bunch of extraneous to a lot of scenes- cartoonish henchmen, Legolas and Filler Elf getting more screentime than the Dwarven party, and ridiculous stuff like Human bows, rivers of gold, barrel level, etc. At points it feels like it was a licenced game which had had extra playtime added.
I will not have you badmouth Hawt Redhead Elf. She's the best dang thing about this trilogy.
In other news my sister got me a gift vertificate so 'I would have not excuse' not to see it.
They should have rolled Tauriel and Levolas into their own trilogy, set in LoTR and occurring chronologically between the hobbit and fellowship. Would have been epic.
Talys wrote: They should have rolled Tauriel and Levolas into their own trilogy, set in LoTR and occurring chronologically between the hobbit and fellowship. Would have been epic.
And endure the further rantings of book-purists? No thanks.
They should have rolled Tauriel and Levolas into their own trilogy, set in LoTR and occurring chronologically between the hobbit and fellowship. Would have been epic.
I think Jackson made a dire mistake keeping the 13 short hairy guys. He should have jsut swapped them for 13 hawt redhead elf chicks and went from there.
They should have rolled Tauriel and Levolas into their own trilogy, set in LoTR and occurring chronologically between the hobbit and fellowship. Would have been epic.
I think Jackson made a dire mistake keeping the 13 short hairy guys. He should have jsut swapped them for 13 hawt redhead elf chicks and went from there.
It really would have been the best course of action.
Talys wrote: They should have rolled Tauriel and Levolas into their own trilogy, set in LoTR and occurring chronologically between the hobbit and fellowship. Would have been epic.
And endure the further rantings of book-purists? No thanks.
Book purists (like me!) have no problems with new fiction that adds to middle-earth lore. For example, shadows over morodor (the game) is great. However, when you butcher an iconic book, changing not only the content but the spirit in which it was written, that's horrible.
Hobbit was not about great battles, an epic adventure, armies, orcs, or necromancers. It was not a tale of the One Ring to rule them all, and in darkness bind them. It wasn't the tale of Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, Legolas, and Radagast... The Hobbit was never intended to be "more of the cool kids in LoTR"... especially when it was written beforehand
They should have rolled Tauriel and Levolas into their own trilogy, set in LoTR and occurring chronologically between the hobbit and fellowship. Would have been epic.
I think Jackson made a dire mistake keeping the 13 short hairy guys. He should have jsut swapped them for 13 hawt redhead elf chicks and went from there.
It really would have been the best course of action.
I note that nowhere in the book does Bilbo ever deny having aided 13 hawt redhead elf chicks recover their clothing optional beach resort from a fire drake.
They should have rolled Tauriel and Levolas into their own trilogy, set in LoTR and occurring chronologically between the hobbit and fellowship. Would have been epic.
I think Jackson made a dire mistake keeping the 13 short hairy guys. He should have jsut swapped them for 13 hawt redhead elf chicks and went from there.
well its like what happened with GW's Lord of the Rings line, its hard to support a line when it is limited to a movie or book, and GW can only do so much to support it.
Asterios wrote: well its like what happened with GW's Lord of the Rings line, its hard to support a line when it is limited to a movie or book, and GW can only do so much to support it.
Except you could hardly consider GW to be supporting The Hobbit line at all. There are models that should be in that are missing and there's a whole bunch of models that should be in cheap plastic so you can actually assemble a decent force instead of expensive failcast blister packs with minimal poses.
Asterios wrote: well its like what happened with GW's Lord of the Rings line, its hard to support a line when it is limited to a movie or book, and GW can only do so much to support it.
Except you could hardly consider GW to be supporting The Hobbit line at all. There are models that should be in that are missing and there's a whole bunch of models that should be in cheap plastic so you can actually assemble a decent force instead of expensive failcast blister packs with minimal poses.
well you know GW anything for a buck, and they can charge more for Finecrap then they could for plastic.
Asterios wrote: well its like what happened with GW's Lord of the Rings line, its hard to support a line when it is limited to a movie or book, and GW can only do so much to support it.
Except you could hardly consider GW to be supporting The Hobbit line at all. There are models that should be in that are missing and there's a whole bunch of models that should be in cheap plastic so you can actually assemble a decent force instead of expensive failcast blister packs with minimal poses.
well you know GW anything for a buck, and they can charge more for Finecrap then they could for plastic.
But it doesn't really work out when you don't sell as much because far fewer people are willing to pay the absurdly high prices.
notprop wrote:There's actually an article in this months Wargames Soldier and Strategy about the I'm pact of Warhammer on Historicals. It's quite interesting but incorrectly indicates the Warhammer system being used for the plethora of Warhammer Historicals systems that actually used te LotRs system.
I wonder if there were different versions of it Notprop? I played one years ago that was basically WFB but without magic.
weeble1000 wrote:
Why do you think GW forced Priestly out of the design studio? GW got pissed about LotR when the bubble burst, and blamed it on Priestly, quite flagrantly ignoring the fact that it was a huge, unprecedentedly successful money earner for the company that GW eventually bungled with poor support after the hype from Return of the King died down.
I had just heard that Priestly got promoted to a point within the company where he wasn't doing anything creative any more, and decided to leave on that basis. Certainly didn't hear there was any animosity towards him, the guy is practically the keystone for GW being where it is today after all.
Hobbit was not about great battles, an epic adventure, armies, orcs, or necromancers. It was not a tale of the One Ring to rule them all, and in darkness bind them. It wasn't the tale of Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, Legolas, and Radagast... The Hobbit was never intended to be "more of the cool kids in LoTR"... especially when it was written beforehand
I disagree. The Hobbit itself may not have concerned these things, but only because Tolkien hadn't thought of them at the time. Look at RotK's appendices; almost every addition to the plot barring Tauriel and Azog is in there. This is all stuff from Tolkien's own pen, and I think to have just stuck to the book of the Hobbit would have led to a single, very boring film that totally threw away the richness of the setting that LotR established. Are you saying you'd prefer to have seen the Necromancer simply mentioned as an aside so Gandalf had a reason to dissappear so the Dwarves could get into trouble? Or have then entire cumularite battle have Bilbo being hit over the head after 5 minutes and waking up to find out who died?
Honestly, I think that would have been a waste. To stick to the skeleton of the book and leave out everything that makes it a part of Middle Earth rather than generic fantasy would have been a complete wasted opportunity, and I'm very glad it was expanded to a trilogy. The Hobbit as a book is rather a one-dimensional, linear and frankly weak (in comparison to the depth of LotR) story, it needed something adding to make it a compelling film, and in my opinion, succeedeed in this.
I had just heard that Priestly got promoted to a point within the company where he wasn't doing anything creative any more, and decided to leave on that basis. Certainly didn't hear there was any animosity towards him, the guy is practically the keystone for GW being where it is today after all.
So far as I heard, he got put into a job that he would hate so that he would inevitably quit. That happens all of the time, and I am told that it is a typical course of action in the UK, but I don't really know about that.
In any case, I had the story from the man himself, so...if GW didn't think it was punitive, Priestly sure as heck thought it was.
GW doesn't give a about who or what was or is 'keystone'. One of my beefs with GW management is about the Priestly deal. The company forced out a creative game designer because he spear-headed one of the most profitable product lines GW ever had, and they needed someone to blame when the bubble burst after a rash of mishandling that had nothing to do with the designer himself. Who the heck does that? And the ultimate result is that said ex-employee walks across the street and starts working with your competition. Such idiocy.
OK well in that case, your account trumps my second/third hand story!
That's a really sad thing to hear, but doesn't surprise me to be honest. What's also sad is that you sometimes read pretty disparaging comments about him on fan forums, I think more often than not just because he has now left GW and the corporate loyalty seems to come first. They don't stop to think that he was the creative heart of the company in its formative days, the first name on Rogue Trader, and without him you wouldn't have 40k or WHFBor the success of GW as a company.
On your one point it's certainly an issue in the UK in that employees are well protected and therefore very difficult to sack - even if someone is perceived as being bad at their job there has to be significant grievance procedures and it to be shown by employers that they have made large efforts to improve the work of the individual. Hence people get 'moved sideways', and actually promoted a lot of the time(!), simply because that is the easier course of action. This also happens if there is a 'clash of character' between individuals, as sometimes happens in the workplace and I would suspect probably happened here.
Pacific wrote: OK well in that case, your account trumps my second/third hand story!
That's a really sad thing to hear, but doesn't surprise me to be honest. What's also sad is that you sometimes read pretty disparaging comments about him on fan forums, I think more often than not just because he has now left GW and the corporate loyalty seems to come first. They don't stop to think that he was the creative heart of the company in its formative days, the first name on Rogue Trader, and without him you wouldn't have 40k or WHFBor the success of GW as a company.
On your one point it's certainly an issue in the UK in that employees are well protected and therefore very difficult to sack - even if someone is perceived as being bad at their job there has to be significant grievance procedures and it to be shown by employers that they have made large efforts to improve the work of the individual. Hence people get 'moved sideways', and actually promoted a lot of the time(!), simply because that is the easier course of action. This also happens if there is a 'clash of character' between individuals, as sometimes happens in the workplace and I would suspect probably happened here.
That's definitely part of what it was, in my opinion, based on what I heard. I think folks like Priestly and Renton wanted to give more attention to specialist games like Mordheim, Blood Bowl, etc. That was against the GW corporate ethos. On a purely speculative basis, I also think that it was probably pretty boring churning out content for 40K/Fantasy over and over again.
Kirby is very anti-risk, anti-new. He likes to do the things that have worked in the past. That's not really what stimulates a game designer in my experience. You want to be making something new and different. You want to push boundaries and strive to give players a better and better experience.
Hobbit was not about great battles, an epic adventure, armies, orcs, or necromancers. It was not a tale of the One Ring to rule them all, and in darkness bind them. It wasn't the tale of Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, Legolas, and Radagast... The Hobbit was never intended to be "more of the cool kids in LoTR"... especially when it was written beforehand
I disagree. The Hobbit itself may not have concerned these things, but only because Tolkien hadn't thought of them at the time.
Spoiler:
Look at RotK's appendices; almost every addition to the plot barring Tauriel and Azog is in there. This is all stuff from Tolkien's own pen, and I think to have just stuck to the book of the Hobbit would have led to a single, very boring film that totally threw away the richness of the setting that LotR established. Are you saying you'd prefer to have seen the Necromancer simply mentioned as an aside so Gandalf had a reason to dissappear so the Dwarves could get into trouble? Or have then entire cumularite battle have Bilbo being hit over the head after 5 minutes and waking up to find out who died?
Honestly, I think that would have been a waste. To stick to the skeleton of the book and leave out everything that makes it a part of Middle Earth rather than generic fantasy would have been a complete wasted opportunity, and I'm very glad it was expanded to a trilogy. The Hobbit as a book is rather a one-dimensional, linear and frankly weak (in comparison to the depth of LotR) story, it needed something adding to make it a compelling film, and in my opinion, succeedeed in this.
I agree that more was needed to fill a trilogy, but if Jackson had just stuck to one good movie, none (or very little) of the additional material -and almost none of the Jackson-additions- would have been necessary. The Hobbit is a splendid little adventure tale and would have made a very good little movie. With Jackson and Weta behind the project it could have been an Extremely good little movie. Unfortunately Petey seems less and less capable or willing to make a "little movie".
Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote: Can someone explain these "Jackson-additions" to me?
Basically the movies added a bunch of extraneous to a lot of scenes- cartoonish henchmen, Legolas and Filler Elf getting more screentime than the Dwarven party, and ridiculous stuff like Human bows, rivers of gold, barrel level, etc. At points it feels like it was a licenced game which had had extra playtime added.
This exactly. Though not unique to the Hobbit films (it started in the first trilogy), they take to a whole new level, the addition of non-Tolkien characters, scenes actions, etc.
It's just far more noticeable in The Hobbit because he had to do so much of it to make a series of films that take longer to watch than the Hobbit takes to read.
weeble1000 wrote: [
That's definitely part of what it was, in my opinion, based on what I heard. I think folks like Priestly and Renton wanted to give more attention to specialist games like Mordheim, Blood Bowl, etc. That was against the GW corporate ethos. On a purely speculative basis, I also think that it was probably pretty boring churning out content for 40K/Fantasy over and over again.
Kirby is very anti-risk, anti-new. He likes to do the things that have worked in the past. That's not really what stimulates a game designer in my experience. You want to be making something new and different. You want to push boundaries and strive to give players a better and better experience.
Is that part of the problem any company experiences as it grows larger?
In the case of GW, the free wheeling 'Let's design something that we think is fun and cool" types that started the ball rolling found that they needed business types to run the empire as it grew. Then the business types stop the creatives because that 'fun and cool something' might be risky as regards the accounting.
Hence all the creatives are now having fun being Mantic or Warlord Games while GW is slipping.
Hobbit was not about great battles, an epic adventure, armies, orcs, or necromancers. It was not a tale of the One Ring to rule them all, and in darkness bind them. It wasn't the tale of Galadriel, Elrond, Saruman, Legolas, and Radagast... The Hobbit was never intended to be "more of the cool kids in LoTR"... especially when it was written beforehand
I disagree. The Hobbit itself may not have concerned these things, but only because Tolkien hadn't thought of them at the time.
Spoiler:
Look at RotK's appendices; almost every addition to the plot barring Tauriel and Azog is in there. This is all stuff from Tolkien's own pen, and I think to have just stuck to the book of the Hobbit would have led to a single, very boring film that totally threw away the richness of the setting that LotR established. Are you saying you'd prefer to have seen the Necromancer simply mentioned as an aside so Gandalf had a reason to dissappear so the Dwarves could get into trouble? Or have then entire cumularite battle have Bilbo being hit over the head after 5 minutes and waking up to find out who died?
Honestly, I think that would have been a waste. To stick to the skeleton of the book and leave out everything that makes it a part of Middle Earth rather than generic fantasy would have been a complete wasted opportunity, and I'm very glad it was expanded to a trilogy. The Hobbit as a book is rather a one-dimensional, linear and frankly weak (in comparison to the depth of LotR) story, it needed something adding to make it a compelling film, and in my opinion, succeedeed in this.
I agree that more was needed to fill a trilogy, but if Jackson had just stuck to one good movie, none (or very little) of the additional material -and almost none of the Jackson-additions- would have been necessary. The Hobbit is a splendid little adventure tale and would have made a very good little movie. With Jackson and Weta behind the project it could have been an Extremely good little movie. Unfortunately Petey seems less and less capable or willing to make a "little movie".
I would still rather have a prequel trilogy to LotR of the same scale, scope and class than "a little adventure movie". Just differering taste, I guess, but I don't think of these films as a movie-version of The Hobbit novel, but rather another chapter in the history of Middle Earth established in LotR films. Everything that makes the Hobbit good is still there and capitalised on, but at the same time, all the little strands that lead into the story told in LotR add so much to the film for me. From Legolas's dig at the portrait of Gimli in DoS to the entirity of the Necromancer stuff and the theory-to-fact of his identity, it all makes it a part of something greater, and makes the most of the opportunity to expand the greatest trilogy of films ever made into something even grander, richer and deeper.
I would still rather have a prequel trilogy to LotR of the same scale, scope and class than "a little adventure movie". Just differering taste, I guess, but I don't think of these films as a movie-version of The Hobbit novel, but rather another chapter in the history of Middle Earth established in LotR films. Everything that makes the Hobbit good is still there and capitalised on, but at the same time, all the little strands that lead into the story told in LotR add so much to the film for me. From Legolas's dig at the portrait of Gimli in DoS to the entirity of the Necromancer stuff and the theory-to-fact of his identity, it all makes it a part of something greater, and makes the most of the opportunity to expand the greatest trilogy of films ever made into something even grander, richer and deeper.
I agree that the expanding of what was happening in the background of The Hobbit was a good move and links the movies to the LOTR trilogy but there are certain elements to the Hobbit movies that I don't like.
The main one for me was the almost sidelining of Bilbo in the spiders sequence. In the book, he is the one who recues the party and draws the spiders off allowing an escape. In the film it becomes another "Aren't Elves cool?" scene. I don't insist that films are necessarily slaves to the source material but that change, to me, undermines Bilbo's growth as a hero.
I found the Alfrid scenes in the final movie particularly grating.
Boooooooooring. Oh...my...god...boring. And the film was so damn long that we only got to see one preview!
Spoiler:
There's that guy again. No, it isn't funny anymore. Ah, need to lighten the mood again after an hour of mind-numbing action, there's that guy again, and he still isn't funny, even when you put him in a dress.
Oh, now Legolas gets to fight that guy...and now Tauriel gets to fight him...and now...that dwarf? gets to fight him...and now Legolas fights him again...oh, he's finally dead...no, Legolas gets to fight him again...You know it is a terrible movie when you want the mini-boss to die so that the movie can end!
Enter Sauron.gif...hope you don't get seizures. Movie not long enough? Let's add 10 minutes of smash cuts while Thorin decides whether to fight in the battle.
The dwarves put on a bunch of armor...sit around in Erebor wearing it...then take it all off before actually joining the battle!
Cheesy lines are cheesy. "There's only 100 of them, we'll handle it." Wait, what?. The two of you are going to kill 100 goblin scouts...even though there are only 20 extras playing those scouts, and even though we cut away for any of your fight with them...then cut back to the same 20 extras dead on the ground. So...what was the point of telling us there were 100 of them...so that we would all know how bad- you are? WTF PETER JACKSON?!? 180 minutes of non-stop action and you don't show any of the impossible 2 v 100 fight of ultimate badassery?
Yeah some odd weaknesses, like trolls out in the sun and um sand worms? Sand worms?
But the Justice League of Middle Earth brought a smile to my face.
I'll have to do a more thorough review in the OT forum but it did briefly make me wish GW was still all in on this, I'd love some of the trolls from the final battle.
I may even get the extended editions for this 'trilogy' after all.
And y'know, if they are smart and if they like money, a year from now they'll put out Hobbit - the single movie edition cutting the 3 films into one 2 hour one thus getting our money agian, and shutting up critics
And y'know, if they are smart and if they like money, a year from now they'll put out Hobbit - the single movie edition cutting the 3 films into one 2 hour one thus getting our money agian, and shutting up critics
That would be the only money the Hobbit Movie(s) would get out of me.
Yeah some odd weaknesses, like trolls out in the sun and um sand worms? Sand worms?
But the Justice League of Middle Earth brought a smile to my face.
I'll have to do a more thorough review in the OT forum but it did briefly make me wish GW was still all in on this, I'd love some of the trolls from the final battle.
I may even get the extended editions for this 'trilogy' after all.
And y'know, if they are smart and if they like money, a year from now they'll put out Hobbit - the single movie edition cutting the 3 films into one 2 hour one thus getting our money agian, and shutting up critics
What, like Troll McFlail Hands? Much like the first two films, there was a good movie inside of that bloated bunch of nonsense. It was there...but it was dragged down by BS. I very much agree that one could take the extant material and cut it down into a good 3 hour movie. I'd give it another hour of good material.
Don't get me wrong, I like a good adaptation. I also enjoy imaginative expansions on the books. I quite like Dain and his war pig. Fun, cool, and dos not inherently detract from the story. But there was so much other bloated nonsense. I actually laughed out loud when Legolas ran up those falling stones.
And yes, I forgot to mention the sandworms in my previous post...I think that my mind is trying to block them out.
I thought we were talking about free rules for games workshop hobbit and lord of the rings models not people to complain about whether or not they like the movies? Did I miss something?
I was hoping GW would re-release the Battle of the Five Armies warmaster type game for this movie. I sold off my copy years ago but at this point would buy it again if the opportunity arose. Of course, they probably would have to redesign the figures/units to better match the film to comply with licensing requirements, but it would still be a product I would be interested in.
As for the movie, I took the wife, daughter and Son2 (who was home for Christmas) to see it in the local Imax. It was a decent enough popcorn movie. I, like others, would have preferred if they had stuck closer to the book, but we enjoyed it. I have the first two extended versions on BluRay, and will add this one when it is released to round out the set.
Don't get me wrong, I like a good adaptation. I also enjoy imaginative expansions on the books. I quite like Dain and his war pig. Fun, cool, and dos not inherently detract from the story. But there was so much other bloated nonsense. I actually laughed out loud when Legolas ran up those falling stones.
When folks roll their eyes at Legolas's antics, I think they keep forgetting that in the LotR, Tolkien wrote about the elf walking on the snow in the mountain pass - without disturbing or sinking into the surface. Yeah, he's that freaking ridiculous.
However, that "war pig" was silly. Had it been a wild boar, I could have seen that. Heck, if it hadn't been the same pig from a couple scenes earlier with the men of Dale leading the bare pig around town it might not have been so bad. Did like the mountain goats, though.
Don't get me wrong, I like a good adaptation. I also enjoy imaginative expansions on the books. I quite like Dain and his war pig. Fun, cool, and dos not inherently detract from the story. But there was so much other bloated nonsense. I actually laughed out loud when Legolas ran up those falling stones.
When folks roll their eyes at Legolas's antics, I think they keep forgetting that in the LotR, Tolkien wrote about the elf walking on the snow in the mountain pass - without disturbing or sinking into the surface. Yeah, he's that freaking ridiculous.
However, that "war pig" was silly. Had it been a wild boar, I could have seen that. Heck, if it hadn't been the same pig from a couple scenes earlier with the men of Dale leading the bare pig around town it might not have been so bad. Did like the mountain goats, though.
Except that the mountain goats came out of nowhere, with no context whatsoever, unless I fell asleep when they were introduced. They just...appeared on screen. Dain riding his war pig at least makes some sense, and the pig was introduced when Dain and the Iron Hills dwarves first appeared on screen. Presumably, those mountain goats were brought by Dain, but I sure as hell didn't see them in the film before Thorin and who-cares-who-these-dwarves-are started riding them.
That's awful filmmaking.
And there's a subtle difference between mentioning that an elf walks lightly on top of fallen snow and depicting an elf running up falling blocks 20 minutes into an overblown fight scene that should have lasted 2 minutes. Elves are cool and ephemeral and totes awesome, yes. Mr. JRRT had a hardon for elves, yes. And it was a little nod to the fans to show Legolas walking on top of the show in the appropriate scene. That does not justify the BS CGI movie-destroying shenanigans PJ has Legolas doing in those films.
The rams came with Dain's army, and there's a shot in the trailer which shows them charging en masse over a hill that didn't make it into the film. It will doubtless be in the Extended Edition, along with the dwarven Chariots and Ballistae that suffered the same fate.
I have no issue with Legolas; yes, he's doing stuff that shouldn't really be possible, but on the other hand, he's an elf, that's kind of their MO. Add in the fact he has had centuries of training and it's really not that hard to explain his antics.
lol, but yeah...completely made up character, too. And while I did like Tauriel it was kinda lame how she and Legolas kinda stole Bilbo's thunder in the MIrkwood fight with the spiders.
Yup. This alone made me really dislike the second one. As i heard that Beorn has only a 30 second appearance in Five Armies (but i'm sure legolas has a 45 minute goblin genocide-killpage spree knowing Jackson), I will be waiting until this hits HBO rather than seeing it in theatres.
At least if Jackson chooses to do the Silmarillion its chock full of Elves for him to gratify himself sexually to.
Just in case there are any interested LotR players here (I live in hope) that don't often check the sub-forum, a few of us down there have put together an unofficial supplement that expands a lot on the GW free one (in that, you know, it has actual content! )
There is alot of hate for a series that broke box office records. I personally loved the movies. The models I love even more, but I admit that I mostly use them for playing Cubicle 7's One Ring RPG.
I like the books (in fact I like The Hobbit book significantly more than the LOTR books) and I also liked the movies (preferred the LOTR movies to The Hobbit mainly because The Hobbit felt like it was trying too hard to recreate the LOTR movies, but I do like both).
Though I still hate axe-in-head Dwarf, bird poo wizard and scrotum beard and a few others.
The table top game by GW though... I just can't get in to it. I love the models but GW has just mistreated the franchise far too much. If Mirkwood Rangers were $40AUD instead of $70AUD, I would have bought several boxes, instead I've bought none, if Gundabad Orcs were plastic and reasonably priced I would have bought a ton, instead I've bought zero). I haven't touched a single model in The Hobbit range which is amazing given how much I love so many of the models.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I like the books (in fact I like The Hobbit book significantly more than the LOTR books) and I also liked the movies (preferred the LOTR movies to The Hobbit mainly because The Hobbit felt like it was trying too hard to recreate the LOTR movies, but I do like both).
Though I still hate axe-in-head Dwarf, bird poo wizard and scrotum beard and a few others.
The table top game by GW though... I just can't get in to it. I love the models but GW has just mistreated the franchise far too much. If Mirkwood Rangers were $40AUD instead of $70AUD, I would have bought several boxes, instead I've bought none, if Gundabad Orcs were plastic and reasonably priced I would have bought a ton, instead I've bought zero). I haven't touched a single model in The Hobbit range which is amazing given how much I love so many of the models.
Oh dear lord. I had looked online at the Mirkwood rangers and decided to get a few sets. Must have been on the US site, because they were listed as $40, which I thought was brilliant and fair. That's damn witch elf prices but with monoposed figures. I'm devastated. Not surprised, mind you, but devastated.
Yup I am in the same boat. Love the minis. Like the rules. Hate the price. It's the price and nickel and diming GW did with The Hobbit and end of LotR that I gave up on it and stopped buying.
I was going to start a project where I bought all GWLotR/The Hobbit minis, but with 1/2 the reduction of what you got in the box, and 1/3 the price (so a price increase) on the old units and the ridiculous prices of the new units, I just gave up on my project and stopped buying anything LotR/The Hobbit. Sadly the free rules, while good, got me to take a look, but once I see the prices, I just cringe and shake my head on what I could have bought if the prices were reasonable.
Yeah, same reason I never bought any of the Hobbit figures myself, despite using a bunch of the LotR range for Kings of War as well as the actual SBG. Depending on the force(s) you're interested in, a lot of historical ranges work to make the various Kingdoms of Men, with slight;y different aesthetics (though not much for Normans>Rohirrim). WGF Orcs work for PJ's ME Orcs, and then there's millions of plastic Moria Goblins and Uruk-Hai floating around on eBay...
I'm an Elf player primarily. I'm sure there will be suitible Mirkwood Elves around somewhere, but I'm more concerned about the armoured varients of Elves which I've yet to see alternate companies make. Thankfully I already have a few from why back when, but there's no way I'll be buying any Elven cavalry or such, which is so sad. Maybe if they do drop the licence and have a clearance sale, though at this rate I think the company is more likely to melt the models and send me a molten carcass of broken Elven dreams with any purchase over $450; in a pretty limited edition box.
I think it's sadder for me because LoTRs brought me to the hobby, I won NSW GT using Elves and always found the rules so rewarding
Yeah, the elves have a much more specific look to them than the Mounted Normans>Rohirrim, and I'm in the same situation with the newer elven models. Your best bet for clearance would be local stores running them out, since most etailers have stopped carrying the LotR/Hobbit range due to the various GW shenanigans of the past few years.
The inflation in this is staggering. An elvish weapon that can be used as a hand weapon, great weapon, spear, or shield all at once? M/W/F 3/3/3 Bilbo? A Hero riding a Hero with two separate M/W/F profiles? Auto-wounding on 3+? Twenty Wounds on Smaug?
I remember a game that was subtly unbalanced, not these levels of crazy. That said it's a pretty solid adaption of the movie, given the degree to which the movie was an ever-escalating series of increasingly absurd stunts.
I'll have to make a trip to Perth for that, my flgs already cleared before I moved here. I don't want to miss out and every time I go to a store they have less and less of the range, though your suggestion for the Normans for Rohirrim would actually diversify (and drop the cost!) of them a lot, especially their cavalry options. Those 6 poses got old fast. Then again, I wish the High Elves had the model diversity of the Rohirrim.
Stupid LoTRs films designing absurdly unique and visually stunning Elven armour...
So anyway, Elves remain tricky - especially PJ-Movie-themed ones, which is a real shame, but there are a lot of options for the "dirtier" races out there.
Thank you for the post, I really appreciate the effort it has taken to compile that and have saved it (and likely quite a few bucks when I actually buy them!)
So anyway, Elves remain tricky - especially PJ-Movie-themed ones, which is a real shame, but there are a lot of options for the "dirtier" races out there.
There's a lot of unique aesthetics in LOTR so that while you can pick out forces here and there that can be replicated with 3rd party models, there's so many that either don't work well or are incomplete.
Given the moronic price of Gundabad Orcs, I'd love to see someone make some alternatives for those bulkier style Orcs. Though I guess converting Urak Hai is an option..
Azazel: Thanks for that post, very useful and informative. I've been looking at doing Middle Earth through historicals for a while but that's a nice summary.
AkhilleusK42 wrote: Thank you for the post, I really appreciate the effort it has taken to compile that and have saved it (and likely quite a few bucks when I actually buy them!)
Not a worry. Wargames Factory also have a fair few Dark Ages figures that would also work well for Rohirrim and Dunendings. Again with the Saxons and Vikings, and throw in some ancient Celts and Germans as well.
http://thecombatcompany.com/categories/wargames-factory.html
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AllSeeingSkink wrote: There's a lot of unique aesthetics in LOTR so that while you can pick out forces here and there that can be replicated with 3rd party models, there's so many that either don't work well or are incomplete.
Given the moronic price of Gundabad Orcs, I'd love to see someone make some alternatives for those bulkier style Orcs. Though I guess converting Urak Hai is an option..
Absolutely true if you're going with the WETA/PJ films' aesthetics. On the other hand, several of the forces work just fine, and it doesn't preclude anyone who wants to play the game from doing so using any of the other imagery that has been used for LotR before the films. As you said, the Gundabads aren't far off the Uruks. Just some new heads and maybe some greenstuff press-moulded shields and you'll be okay for the armoured ones.
to a lot of scenes- cartoonish henchmen, Legolas and Filler Elf getting more screentime than the Dwarven party, and ridiculous stuff like Human bows, rivers of gold, barrel level, etc. At points it feels like it was a licenced game which had had extra playtime added.
