I don't know if this is new, but I'll post anyway.
I was in my local GW on Thursday and couldn't help but over hear one of the employees. He said that GW had lost the LotR license, if not on the very brink of losing it, and the Hobbit would be lucky to remain another year and a half max...
So whether everything is dropped after this, or rules stay in print with nothing new, I'm not sure. But I think it's fair to say our system won't grow much more...
At this point I think ire certainly safe to say we won't be seeing any more models produced. This month would have been a perfect time to finish off the range with the DVD release of the last film, but we got nothing. Sadly, as far as GW goes, it's game over. Last I saw the licence had actually been renewed until 2017, but I guess that could have changed.
More worrying is the rumour doing the rounds that this new Horus Heresy range from GW rather than FW will be replacing LotR on he shelves, while what's left of the LotR/Hobbit range goes Direct Only. Not a great loss for the LotR stuff as eBay is almost always cheaper if you're patient, but for the Hobbit stuff the 2nd Hand market is far less flooded, and the cheapest way to get it is online discounters. If it goes Direct Only, getting the Hobbit minis for anything less that RPP is going to be even harder. I suggest picking up anything you really want asap before that happens.
The biggest loss, though, will be the lack of exposure. At the moment, no matter how hard they try to sell you 40k or WFB, you can still see cool LotR minis in a GW window, walk into the store and leave with your first minis. That won't happen if the whole range gets pulled, and only those who are already aware of the game and go looking are likely to get into it.
The game will survive, thanks to it's very dedicated community, but I doubt that community will grow much once this happens, and many things that should not have been forgotten will be lost...
It's a shame. I remember starting this game back in school, it's what got me into the hobby all together! I still have the original Fellowship, the metal ones. Never had the guts to paint them as they look so awesome I didn't want to ruin them!
It's true though that interest in the LoTR/Hobbit will probably diminish now the films are over. For me, watching the films etc. with friends was what got us in the mood to play the games again and again.
GW losing the license to Middle-earth would be the best thing to ever happen to it.
I know from talking to the Tolkien Estate that they are trying to have Saul Zaentz's license revoked for The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.
The Tolkien Estate is of the opinion that Peter Jackson's oeuvre have nothing at all to do with Middle-earth, and that the sooner his works disappear into the ether the better.
Middle-earth would be better served with a line of miniatures that better fits the aesthetic described and depicted by Tolkien.
The games produced by GW are nothing particularly special in terms of a game, and other rules systems could be produced to replace them in an instant (Gripping Beast's SAGA system would work easily for Middle-earth, perhaps even better because it does not try to conflate unit tactics with skirmish behaviors).
And, even though Peter Jackson's design work is visually stunning, it isn't really appropriate for Middle-earth, which Tolkien described many times as being a more Dark Age world, than the High Middle-Ages depicted by Jackson.
It would be, again, relatively easy to replace Jackson's Weta Designs with others that were equally stunning, yet closer to what Tolken intended.
BeAfraid wrote: GW losing the license to Middle-earth would be the best thing to ever happen to it.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I wholeheartedly disagree. It would mean the death of one of the best and most consistent ranges of miniatures in last 20 years (LotR mostly, here. The Hobbit range has some great stuff, but far more duds than LotR), and similarly one of the most fun and entertaining rulesets along with it. 'Realism' of the rules be damned, I'd say that as a game, LotR is possibly the best GW has ever done. It plays equally well with 5 or 50 models, is deep enough to be meaningful but light enough that it doesn't get bogged down, and very balanced, with the exception of a few Hobbit profiles.
Middle-earth would be better served with a line of miniatures that better fits the aesthetic described and depicted by Tolkien.
And, even though Peter Jackson's design work is visually stunning, it isn't really appropriate for Middle-earth, which Tolkien described many times as being a more Dark Age world, than the High Middle-Ages depicted by Jackson.
It would be, again, relatively easy to replace Jackson's Weta Designs with others that were equally stunning, yet closer to what Tolken intended.
MB
Would it, though?
Going purely by the book, most of the races men would be reduced to 'guys in chainmail with different colour livery', Elves would be 'slightly taller men with pointy ears', and Dwarves would be 'men but shorter and hairier'. Orcs would be more uniform/less varied, and Uruks would just be bigger Orcs. It might be more 'accurate', but I'm not sure what would make that inherently better than the current range, which, in terms of accuracy to the films that the line is based on, are pretty much perfect. Odd as it seems to say it, a 'true' Middle Earth army would be almost as generic as a Fantasy army could be to a casual fan.
With the current minis I can take one glance at a table and know who is fighting who, even if the minis are painted baldly in three colours. With a more 'accurate' selection, I'm not sure someone who hasn't studied the books in detail would be able to tell a Gondor from a Ronan army unless (and possibly even if) it was expertly painted and covered in the relevant livery/iconography.
I wouldn't worry about any of those things, nor be drawn in to pipe dream arguments. Clearly, none of that is going to happen, and the films were the best thing to happen for sales of the books, exposure of the IP to a wider audience and a bunch of other things that ever happened.
I have to agree with Paradigm here. Despite slight derailment towards the end the LotR system has imo overshadowed other games (save 40k + WHFB) and has done incredibly well for GW. However, it was never going to last forever but it definitely should have lasted longer.
I'm kinda hoping other people DON'T pick it up to be honest! GW's sculpts are/were fantastic and their rules really capture the mood. Whether it sticks to the exact description or not of Tolkien's work, GW have done an incredibly good job and the minis are everything I imagined the characters to be.
It will be a sad end to the era as I have played since it first came out, but I can safely say I'll look back on it with fond memories.
There'll pretty much always be a licencee for LotR games and models.
Future miniature game licences will pretty much be based on the PJ films' version of the IP, and even those that aren't will take both broad and specific design queues from the films in terms of look and feel. (Curved swords for elves, blockish weapons and architecture for dwarves, and the like) since that's now what LotRis in the public consciousness and not being a cheap licence, companies will not want to deviate from that as they're in business to make, not lose money. The GW ruleset won't go with the licence, though. It'll only live on in the books in the wilderness (and of course, scans and PDFs). Just as the Star Wars D6 and D20 systems have while the Star Wars IP has been relaunched by FFG as WHFRP 4th Edition. GW have pretty much retained the licance purely in order to sell out existing stock and act as a spoiler to others who might want to pick up the licance and run with it while The Hobbit is still in public consciousness ...and in case any new films within the Zaentz licence are announced in the next couple of years. Like a Legolas and Tauriel action/romcom spinoff or Shadows of Mordor: The Movie, or whatever.
Mithril has a separate licence for miniatures (not miniatures games), and so they'll probably just keep on doing what they have since forever. Once GW leaves the stage they might open up a little more, as they've been very careful over the past ...10+ years as GW is so litigious.
At this point, all I really need from GW is another couple of Grimhammer boxes to finish my Iron Hills army; everything else is either easily substituted or found cheaply on EBay.
As for the actual game content, there is already plenty of fan made material out there (our own BotFA supplement, 1st/2nd/4th Age mods, OR have a Ronan supplement in the works, not to mention KoW mods ect), and I only expect that to grow as GW support drops even more so than now. LotR is actually pretty easy to House Rule once you work out the core points formula, and there's no shortage of material to work with.
Captain Galenus wrote: I'm kinda hoping other people DON'T pick it up to be honest! GW's sculpts are/were fantastic and their rules really capture the mood.
Well the dream would be to have the perry bros pick it up since they made all the good LOTR to begin with.
Talk about completely missing the point (not that I am surprised, as most people outside of academia or the film industry itself don't understand the point).
I did not say that the sculpts produced by GW were not good.
They are fantastic.
But they are not The vision of Tolkien, they are the product almost solely of Peter Jackson.
In fact, while watching the last three of The Hobbit films, for research on our documentary, I noticed that they displayed a disclaimed that in Hollywood (or the Film Industry as a whole) is a Giant Red Flag:
In last two of the films, the disclaimer is:
Inspired by the works of JRR Tolkien.
In the first film, the disclaimer is:
Based upon the works of JRR Tolkien.
In Film Speak, the former is:
"We completely made up a film, using someone else's IP, which has pretty much nothing to do with that IP."
In Film Speak, the latter is:
"We tried to use the IP we claimed as much as possible, but our writers wanted to add their own stuff whenever possible."
When you see a film, such as To Kill a Mockingbird you will see a much more straightforward version of this disclaimer:
"The Film Adaptation of.... X"
There, you will see a very straightforward adaptation of a novel or writer's work (Such as 2001: A Space Oddysey).
You might claim "Realism be Damned," but how many of you would be playing the game if it allowed for the Orcs to shoot Rocket Propelled Grenades at their opponents, or of the Gondorians had tanks, or could leap across 200 meter gaps to get to the other side of the battlefield.
As for GW "always" having a license for Middle-earth.... No.
The Tolkien Estate (with which I speak every now and then about the development of our documentary on the popular depiction of Tolkien's works) has made it very clear that they are working to End Saul Zaentz's, and thus Peter Jackson's association with anything suggestive of Middle-earth.
And considering that GW's current license will expire in 2017, and considering that Christopher Tolkien has left instructions to the Tolkien Estate about Peter Jackson being explicitly prohibited from touching any other Tolkien property (or anyone associated with Weta, or New Line Cinema - the list is exhaustive, and essentially puts a purity test against any new licenses being granted) this means that not only will there be no more movies from Jackson to support the miniature's line, yet the license fee will remain in the many millions of dollars from New Line.... It is doubtful that GW would even want to retain the license.
And then we can bury the Peter Jackson Era of Middle-earth, and move on to producers and creators who are not so eager to eviscerate (Christopher Tolkien's word) Tolkien's creations.
Despite people's protestations, there is such a thing as being closer to what Tolkien intended and NOT being closer to what Tolkien intended (i.e. Being further from what he intended).
People are free to imagine whatever they wish regarding Middle-earth. But this does not mean that what they imagine is what Tolkien imagined it to be (and he left some pretty explicit paintings and descriptions for much of it).
But they are not entitled to their own facts. Facts exist as facts regardless of anyone's desires or imagination. Tolkien, and his estate own the Facts regarding Middle-earth, and when they label something as Not Middle-earth then it isn't Middle-earth (And Peter Jackson's works have been so labeled).
Popular culture might identify them as such. But popular culture doesn't get to vote on what is an isn't, regardless of whether a creation is fiction or not. It is still the creation of a specific person, who left that creation to another to be its guardian and executor. That creator has the right to reject depictions of his creation as having nothing to do with that creation.
But.... I am likely wasting my time here, as I don't think people are understanding this distinction based upon the replies.
ok, i know i've only started to post recently, but i've been on this forum and others like this for a long time.
but
i can not sit silently as someone spouts a clear agenda, without giving my voice to it, be it right or wrong.
to BeAfraid:
obviously, you have your own agenda.
it sounds like you are trying to get in good with the tolkien estate.
perhaps you started out with noble intentions.
but i would advise you to not come on to sites like this and insult things that people love.
i grew up in a time when tolkien's work could only be made in cartoon movies.
i will ALWAYS remember the first time i sat in a movie theater and saw THE BALROG on the big screen.
always.
i get the distinct hint, that the heirs to tolkiens estate want more.
more control, more power, more money, whatever.
that's all well and good.
j.r.r. tolkien did not have to share the stories he originally wrote for his son with the rest of the world
(and maybe, just maybe, that's why the son is so angry about all this)
but the father created a mythos that has inspired millions.
and some cheesy b-movie director managed to bring that vision to the masses.
the tolkien estate should not bite the hand that feeds it.
the son should not curse the love his father brought to millions.
could the works of j.r.r. tolkien be brought to life even better than they have been made?
sure.
the limitations are imagination and technology.
again, as a child, i grew up on some cartoon movies.
seeing SAURON swipe chunks of troops away on the big screen made me almost wet myself.
almost.
the future for tolkien's work is yet to be seen.
i'm sure there may be something out there that is created in the future
that will truly make me soil myself.
but,
that is no reason to condemn those that have been brought into the fold
from whatever source it was
that brought them to middle earth.
do not go the path of morgoth.
BeAfraid wrote: Talk about completely missing the point (not that I am surprised, as most people outside of academia or the film industry itself don't understand the point).
I did not say that the sculpts produced by GW were not good.
They are fantastic.
But they are not The vision of Tolkien, they are the product almost solely of Peter Jackson.
I did not say you said they were bad. But you did say you'd be more than happy to see the 'fantastic' range of minis replaced with something that would be, to my mind, altogether more bland. I was just questioning why you would rejoice at a unique and iconic line being killed off so someone else could make something ultimately generic to the casual observer, just for the sake of closer adherence to a source material that the vast majority of people think has been superbly represented (for most people, LotR is the book-to-film adaptation that others are measured against, and those not versed/interested in minutae like the exact type of sword, pretty much a perfect representation)
You might claim "Realism be Damned," but how many of you would be playing the game if it allowed for the Orcs to shoot Rocket Propelled Grenades at their opponents, or of the Gondorians had tanks, or could leap across 200 meter gaps to get to the other side of the battlefield.
But they don't, do they? What they do is allow me to set up two armies, and have them fight with something more structured than making sound effects and knocking them over, which is all I ask. If I wanted 100% accurate military simulation, I wouldn't be playing a game with Orcs and Wizard for one thing. It's fun, easy to understand, and does a good job of providing an entertaining experience in a setting I love.
And then we can bury the Peter Jackson Era of Middle-earth, and move on to producers and creators who are not so eager to eviscerate (Christopher Tolkien's word) Tolkien's creations.
I wouldn't get your hopes up. A series of almost universally loved, exceptionally successful films that have become a solid part of popular culture aren't going anywhere fast, and I'd hazard a guess that no director or studio are even going to try to remake LotR within the next century. I, for one, hope they don't.
BeAfraid wrote: Talk about completely missing the point
As for GW "always" having a license for Middle-earth.... No.
Not what I said. I said that there will always be LotR licences for miniatures and games floating around. Not that GW would hold them forever.
The Tolkien Estate (with which I speak every now and then about the development of our documentary on the popular depiction of Tolkien's works) has made it very clear that they are working to End Saul Zaentz's, and thus Peter Jackson's association with anything suggestive of Middle-earth.
Good luck with that.
And considering that GW's current license will expire in 2017, and considering that Christopher Tolkien has left instructions to the Tolkien Estate about Peter Jackson being explicitly prohibited from touching any other Tolkien property (or anyone associated with Weta, or New Line Cinema - the list is exhaustive, and essentially puts a purity test against any new licenses being granted) this means that not only will there be no more movies from Jackson to support the miniature's line, yet the license fee will remain in the many millions of dollars from New Line.... It is doubtful that GW would even want to retain the license.
And then we can bury the Peter Jackson Era of Middle-earth, and move on to producers and creators who are not so eager to eviscerate (Christopher Tolkien's word) Tolkien's creations.
Yeah, that's not going to happen. Sorry.
But.... I am likely wasting my time here, as I don't think people are understanding this distinction based upon the replies.
MB
You might well be. But it's because you're not listening to or properly comprehending what's being said and instead are writing answers to comments that haven't been made.
Christopher Tolkien will pass soon. And the estate will become less and less hardline over subsequent years. I think we're much more likely to see a Estate-licenced, NLC/WETA-made Silmarillion Trilogy in the next couple of decades than a remake of LotR. In fact, I wouldn't be terribly surprised to see Disney buy the Middle-Earth IP outright at some stage in the future.
The Perry brothers is a GOOD idea. Kinda hoping they take it on now... Maybe GW wouldn't mind so much giving it to them?
The fact of the matter is there is a whole load more people out their who love the films than pour over all the books. LotR is a system that draws people in to wargaming because people can relate it to a multi million worldwide franchise. A minority of people would want to see book accurate minis than film accurate (it would be interesting to do a poll actually...) so it would be illogical to do that. Even the Tolkien's can clearly see that, as they are clearly an intelligent group of people!
Actually, no. The Tolkiens are offended as all get out by the gaming miniatures.
And they would prefer there to be NO gaming license, but they had no clue what Saul Zaentz would do with his license (which all current products stem from, not from the Tolkien Estate).
Tolkien, who lives through two World Wars and fought in the First, abhorred "Playing Soldier."
It is an area where the Professor and I would come into conflict over my behavior and participation in such a thing, but I completely understand his point in the matter (and it is a thing where I remain conflicted over my own participation in the gaming industry, especially after having lived through my own participation in a war, and then all manner of personal and urban violence in the form of my late-wife, who died as a result of her attraction to, and inability to control that violence).
As for "insulting something people love...."
Some people must have very thin skins if they took what I quoted Christopher Tolkien as having said, which I agree with, about the Films.
As I said, they are beautiful films.
But they aren't Tolkien as even people here have pointed out in their rush to defend the films.
The Films are the creation of Peter Jackson, and have only a passing resemblance to what Tolkien created.
If that is an insult? I am not entirely certain where your own priorities and agenda lie.
As for having my own agenda.... Yes.
To first produce a documentary about Tolkien with my partners in LA, and then eventually to hopefully work on whoever the Tolkien Estate decides will faithfully produce Tolkien's works in the 20's when Saul Zaentz's license (And thus New Line's) expires.
And, for all of you who are praising the films, you must not have much respect for Tolkien's work to call it "bland," "generic," or to think it needed the spectacle of tunneling worms, leapfrogging elves, or ten foot tall orcs in it to be "interesting" to an audience.
Tolkien's works, without the spectacularization of non-canon "technical fireworks" would likely stand on its own just as well as whatever it is that Peter Jackson has done.
As for the Tolkien Estate selling the rights to Disney, or New Line for the Silmarillion.
The Tolkien Estate is Primarily a group of academics, like myself, for whom no amount of money would sway their principles (99.99% of them are highly conservative Catholics who have an sizable hatred of Hollywood), and Christopher, as I have already said, has included in his will disposition of the remaining licenses and strictures about any use of them for film adaptations (which, to be precise, he has stated that ONLY "Film Adaptations" may be done, and not "Works based upon/inspired by" - these are technical terms which have specific meanings), which would require any scripts, screenplays, and productions meet with the approval of the Tolkien Estate.
This means... If someone does get the license for something like the Narn í Hîn Hurin, or the Lay of Lethian/Tale of Luthin and Beren that they could wind up making the entire production, only to have the Estate pull the plug over an editing dispute.
We have been negotiating our own works with the Tolkien Estate (getting permission, rather than just claiming Acadeic Use, since it is a Documentary), and they have been very clear about their disdain for the popular culture that has (their words) "Perverted the creation of JRR Tolkien." (I do not go quite that far, but I am obviously unhappy about Jackson's treatment of his works).
And... Outside of the gaming community, in the interviews we have done... Most of the people report being disappointed with the films if they had not read the books first, after then reading them.
You seem to think I am saying that you are committing a sin by liking the game, or the miniatures, or the films.
Which is not what I am saying at all.
I am simply saying:
The films are Peter Jackson's work. Not Tolkien's.
And yes... There is a bit of an insult to Tolkien in Jackson laying claim to Tolkien's name to promote the movies when so many of the most important parts of Tolkien's works have been so warped in their use by Jackson in making HIS movies while slapping Tolkien's name on it.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thisisit wrote: ok, i know i've only started to post recently, but i've been on this forum and others like this for a long time.
but
i can not sit silently as someone spouts a clear agenda, without giving my voice to it, be it right or wrong.
i get the distinct hint, that the heirs to tolkiens estate want more.
more control, more power, more money, whatever.
that's all well and good
I have a lot more than a "hint" as to what the Tolkien Estate Wants.
They had to go to court to sue New Line to get the Few million dollars they got from the several Billion generated by the movies.
And Christopher has said in the one interview he gave on the matter that he would give it all back if he could un-do the movies.
This is an issue that isn't about gaming. It is about the deeply held beliefs of the Tolkien's, which have been insulted by Saul Zaentz, first, with the Rankin-bass animation (which is what brought me to Tolkien), and then with the hideous Ralph Bakshi production (and then another ® Rankin-Bass production), and finally Peter Jackson's works.
In exploring Tolkien's academic works, and his theological works, I discovered that there is a depth to Middle-earth that carries a very poignant significance, and is about things that were completely destroyed by Peter Jackson.
Most people are as ignorant of the existence of these thing in Tolkien's work as they are of the Rodannini Pietá by Michelangelo (another work of great Beauty and depth).
Yet what Peter Jackson did to Tolkien's works, in destroying these deeper and more difficult themes was no different than destroying the Rodannini Pietá. You might not have been aware of its existence, and even after its destruction, you might never be aware of what it was, and what it meant.
But this does not mean that there are others who are aware of these things; who are aware of what was not just lost, but destroyed in the process.
In the case of Jackson's films, the damage is not as permanent as having destroyed a priceless piece of art.
But it is a depiction that to those who are aware of that meaning is just as painful as having watched the actual destruction of a priceless artwork. And that the damages done by the perpetuation of the stereotype in the public and popular media will be lasting, and difficult to undo. Confusion and ignorance as to what Tolkien really created will persist.
I do not agree with A LOT of what Tolkien believed, and which he added to Middle-earth as a part of its creation (Just as I do not agree with almost everything Michelangelo or Raphael believed - yet I chose Raphael as my Senior Thesis in Art School when I was younger, doing studies of the figures he painted over while producing The School of Athen - but their works carry the same beauty as does Tolkien's).
Yet if his beliefs are not a part of his creation. If those beliefs, and all of the symbols of those beliefs, which he meticulously and diligently added to his creation are intentionally removed from his creation.....
In what way is it still the creation of Tolkien, any more than removing "The Spark of Life" from the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and replacing it with a Matt Groening Cartoon , would remain the work of of Michelangelo?
You never learned to play well did you? And yes, clearly you and the four or five others whom think the LOTR movies where borderline heresy should take a chill pill, seeing how the films made an very long lasting impression on popular culture and such.
And I cant say I belive a word of the things you spew fourth, post proof of it and people may take your claims a bit serious.
And, for all of you who are praising the films, you must not have much respect for Tolkien's work to call it "bland," "generic," or to think it needed the spectacle of tunneling worms, leapfrogging elves, or ten foot tall orcs in it to be "interesting" to an audience.
And yet, the fact is that simp!y by dint of having defined the modern Fantasy genre, LotR can so easily be seen as generic unless one accentuates aspects of the setting, as the films do. 'Accurate' otherwise, there's no confusing the Gondorians, Rohirrim or Easterlings of the film with each other or any other setting, whereas going by the book, their appearance could just as easily be something out of Terry Brooks' 'Shanarra, Paolini's Alagaesia or GRRM's Westeros or any other Fantasy setting you care to name. Yes, all of those copied the tropes LotR set down, but that doesn't get past the issue that in the post-Tolkie age, LotR needed to evolve to get back the unique identity it had upon publication.
As for Tolkien himself, I respect him as much as any author, no less than any but equally no more to any great extent, and as with any adaptation of author's work, I'm perfectly happy to see it altered if that means the end product is more interesting and enjoyable. Tolkien isn't God, and LotR is not the Best Book Ever Written (very far from it, in fact, and The Hobbit is frankly a bit rubbish as anything more than a bedtime story for children), and neither are sacred. I'd also add that the films weren't for the Tolkien family, they were made to bring enjoyment to the public that might not ever read the books, and in that regard, they are a resounding success.
At the end of the day, I'd rather a better adaptation of a source than a 100% faithful one.
Yet what Peter Jackson did to Tolkien's works, in destroying these deeper and more difficult themes was no different than destroying the Rodannini Pietá. You might not have been aware of its existence, and even after its destruction, you might never be aware of what it was, and what it meant.
But this does not mean that there are others who are aware of these things; who are aware of what was not just lost, but destroyed in the process.
This reminds me of Phillip Pullman's response to being told that his work had been destroyed when the Golden Compass turned out to be nothing like his book, Northern Lights. He supposedly quirked an eyebrow, tapped a copy of the book, and said, 'What are you talking about? It's right here'.
The existence of derivative work in no ways detracts or destroys other existing work.
Trondheim wrote: You never learned to play well did you? And yes, clearly you and the four or five others whom think the LOTR movies where borderline heresy should take a chill pill, seeing how the films made an very long lasting impression on popular culture and such.
And I cant say I belive a word of the things you spew fourth, post proof of it and people may take your claims a bit serious.
It is significantly more that four or five people who are upset by what Peter Jackson did to Tolkien's works. Go visit Quora, or an academic forum about Tolkien (or most Catholics who have read Tolkien) and you will discover they are not at all happy about the movies.
Again, you have no objective knowledge, and are making a biased guess, while we have been out interviewing people, trying to get a representative sample of the population from which we can draw a statistically significant representation of values and understanding of what is involved of the understanding of Tolkien's work (i.e. discover the exact level of knowldge and ignorance about his work).
And, again, just becauseany number of people are ignorant of the significance of a work of art (or even it's significance) does not make it any less horrific to those who Do understand the significance when they see that work of art destroyed in some fashion.
You know, what an "Appeal to Popularity" is?
The Bible also made a long lasting impression upon popular culture, as has the Koran (which brought us such wonderful things as thinquisition, or the Islamic Mahgreb, which destroyed the remnants of the Mediterranean Greco-Roman Civilizations, much as ISIS of the Taliban destroyed, or are destroying vastly important historical and artistic treasures as well), or various individuals who were extremely popular throughout history (Ghengis Khan, Caligula, Pope Leo X - The Borgia Pope, Jack the Ripper, Jefferson Davis, Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Fred Phelps), and who have had a "long-lasting impression upon popular culture."
I am pointing out the fallacy here, not saying that Jackson's Films are the literal equivalent of historical monsters.
But the fallacy remains. That citing a works' "lasting popular impression" has nothing at all to do with what was done to accomplish that impression.
As with everyone else who is oblivious to the significance that Jadkson destroyed with his creations, how can you accurately balance the positive contributions to society with the meta give ones?
This is like asking to give an account of an event about which you know either nothing at all, or very little.
I am not contesting that they have a lasting popular appeal. But so does Professional Wrestling, and it is the fear of serious Tolkien Scholars that lasting damage has been done to the understanding of Tolkien's work by the creation of these movies.
Also:
Why the defensiveness?
Why the hostility at seeing an accurate Film Adaptation of Tolkien's works brought to the screen?
Are you saying that you would not enjoy Tolkien's works without the additions of comic-book elements, and Superhero tropes thrown in?
Are you saying that Tolkien is boring? That his work is not good enough to stand on its own merit?
Yes Tolkien are dull beyound end to read,a nd the hobbit is best suited as toilet paper to be honnest, and why should I care what some person that belives in a mythical figure like the Chrsitian god thinks about a book series?
And I would be cautious to assume what knowledge people sit with.
But in the end arguing with your type of person is a waste of time, seeing how you seem intent on showing your "superiour" mindsett down everyones throath
And, for all of you who are praising the films, you must not have much respect for Tolkien's work to call it "bland," "generic," or to think it needed the spectacle of tunneling worms, leapfrogging elves, or ten foot tall orcs in it to be "interesting" to an audience.
And yet, the fact is that simp!y by dint of having defined the modern Fantasy genre, LotR can so easily be seen as generic unless one accentuates aspects of the setting, as the films do. 'Accurate' otherwise, there's no confusing the Gondorians, Rohirrim or Easterlings of the film with each other or any other setting, whereas going by the book, their appearance could just as easily be something out of Terry Brooks' 'Shanarra, Paolini's Alagaesia or GRRM's Westeros or any other Fantasy setting you care to name. Yes, all of those copied the tropes LotR set down, but that doesn't get past the issue that in the post-Tolkie age, LotR needed to evolve to get back the unique identity it had upon publication.
Again, this seemst of any that people are saying "Tolkien isn't good enough."
As for the recognition of the different people's, why is itthat every Scholr of Tolkien can cite legitimate and accurate references from Tolkien that would differentiate it's people's and nationalities with a ready ease, but you seem to think this not possible?
Is there perhaps something about Tolkien's work, of which you are unaware that points out these distinctions?
As for Tolkien himself, I respect him as much as any author, no less than any but equally no more to any great extent, and as with any adaptation of author's work, I'm perfectly happy to see it altered if that means the end product is more interesting and enjoyable. Tolkien isn't God, and LotR is not the Best Book Ever Written (very far from it, in fact, and The Hobbit is frankly a bit rubbish as anything more than a bedtime story for children), and neither are sacred. I'd also add that the films weren't for the Tolkien family, they were made to bring enjoyment to the public that might not ever read the books, and in that regard, they are a resounding success.
At the end of the day, I'd rather a better adaptation of a source than a 100% faithful one.
Again, this is saying nothing more than "I don't think Tolkien's work is good enough to stand on its own. Someone must adulterate it before it is acceptable."
How would you know if it is a better adaptations do you are not given a chance to have illustrated many of the deeper significances or symbolism that Jackson removed, mocked, or wholly destroyed?
You might not know of that significance at the time (like you might not be aware of the significance of the hand positions of Aristotle and Plato in Raphael's School of Athens (a Renaissance celebration of the rediscovery of the classical philosophers of antiquity).
Yet if someone were to recreate this famous painting, yet remove all of the clues and queues that Raphael placed in the painting to communicate to future generations the significance of these philosopher's rediscovery, you might find the recreation Thrilling.
But it would not only not be Raphael. It would lack the messages that Raphael communicated.
The issue is not about Tolkien being the greatest author on earth.
The issue is about his work being represented as HE would wish it to be represented. It is about appreciating a work of art for it's own sake, not some tarted-up recreation which ultimately removes everything important that the original artist included to begin with.
As you have said yourself: You don't think Tolkien's work is worthy of adaptation without adulteration. It is not good enough as it stands.
If that is what you think, then you should own that belief, and not try to apologize for it.
But if that is the case, then you also really can't call an adulterated adaptation of Tolkien's work, Tolkien's. It would be, as Peter Jackson accurately reports on his products: The creation of Peter Jackson, inspired by JRR Tolkien.
You apparently prefer the diluted, adulterated version better than the original, or the original would be worthy in its own right to stand on its own merits.
MB P.S. I am intentionally using synonyms that are somewhat contentious in order to illustrate the basal meanings involved. They might lack subtlety, but they more accurately draw attention to the basic point. For example. Something that is not a 100% solution, in chemistry is said to be "Adulterated," or "Diluted."
BeAfraid, I think your points are very interesting despite the off-putting arrogance of your tone.
The Jackson films are film adaptations of Tolkien's work, just as the LOTR miniature's game is a tabletop adaptation of the work. They are a different content producers vision of the work, a derivative of the original work. And that's how it should be.
Tolkiens vision literally interpreted on the silver screen would be nigh-impossible to do, and unwatchable. The focus and tone of his books make for good books, but directly adapted would make extremely poor movies, because of the media differences between literature and cinema.
There's nothing wrong with adapting something from the past for modern audiences as long as you make sure to broadly stay in the themes of the original work, which Jackson was clearly very careful to do. Adding more derivative works to LOTR doesn't change the original work or devalue it in any way, it adds more to the mythos and gives more for people to enjoy.
Trondheim wrote: Yes Tolkien are dull beyound end to read,a nd the hobbit is best suited as toilet paper to be honnest, and why should I care what some person that belives in a mythical figure like the Chrsitian god thinks about a book series?
And I would be cautious to assume what knowledge people sit with.
But in the end arguing with your type of person is a waste of time, seeing how you seem intent on showing your "superiour" mindsett down everyones throath
v
I do not believe in a Christian God either (I write for several Atheist and Rationalist publications and websites,in fact).
But the fact remains that Tolkien, and Michelangelo, and Raphel, and Savvadore Dali, and H.R. Giger (just to name a few deeply significant artists) WERE/ARE devout believers in the Christian Myths, and those myths informed their work in very significant fashions.
If you are going to value something, then it is worth knowing what it is that your value, even if that knowledge is sometimes deeply offensive.
That is week one of Freshman Art Apprecition in College.
You are probably not an Art Student, so you might not be as invested in knowing what something is in order to appreciate it more fully: worts and all.
But there are Many people who do value these things about Tolkien's work, because they reveal a deeper understanding of the people, places, and events in the work of an artist. In this case Tolkien.
Yet apparently, the people here have such little faith in the value of Tolkien's work to stand on its own merits (no doubt because they have no knowledge or appreciation of something as simple as why a sword should be shaped a certain way, or why a particular word makes a difference at a specific place) that they'd would prefer it to be altered in some fashion, even if it destroys this significance of which they are ignorant in the process.
Tolkien wrote a short story in a collection of works know as Tales from the Perilous Realms about a painter, by the name of "Ningle" (as in "Niggling detail") who loved to paint Forest landscapes, yet was an appalling painter when it came to painting trees,yet the painter, Niggle, Excelled at the painting of the individual leaves of a tree . The story was titled Leaf by Niggle.
And, as Niggle painted his leaves, meticulously, one day he discovers that he has painted a marvelously detailed forest in the creation of individual leaves.
The story is one of Tolkien's few purely allegorical tales. Tolkien is Niggle.
The Forest Painting is Middle-earth.
Middle-earth is a painting, a tapestry that was created not with a huge sweeping vision, but by the niggling attention to millions of tiny details. And thus the destruction of any one of those details destroys countless others to which it is connected in the web of the forest.
I am completely at a loss regarding the defensiveness people have here regarding Jackson's movies as if the members here were responsible for their creation. Nor at what appears to be a perception of personal hostility.
But at least this one responder is honest enough to say plainly that he thinks Tolkien's works are trash.
What a strange thing for a person to say, and yet be so invested in a game that the person claims to be a product of that author.
I'm going to add more because this is pretty interesting. This guy's view is pretty common when it comes to the "Ivory tower academic" members of the Tolkien fandom, as weird as it might seem, and I haven't really had a chance to argue against this head-on.
I think this comes from a misaligned view of the LOTR copyright, that they're the basic gatekeepers and masters of everything regarding the Lord of the Ring franchise. The copyrights and trademarks and the like are designed to keep a rightful creator not having other people make money off their work, not have them become the ultimate master of the "right" way of interpreting and seeing the work.
The Lord of the Rings, being fictional, is mine just as much as it is Christopher Tolkien's, or your's, anyone else's. It's part of the greater zeitgeist at this point. I can visualize a Lord of the Rings where Sauron was the good guy fighting for progress. I can visualize a modern-day telling, a porn parody, an ironic musical adaptation, or anything I want. Lord of the Rings could be set in the 1970s, and the Battle for the Black Gate could be a dance off in a disco if that's how I want it to be.
The other thing is the ludicrous idea that adding works (maybe works that aren't so scholarly or in line with the authors original vision) somehow devalues the original work. This is false, because the original work is in no way being modified. I could see the discontent if the books were later modified to fit the movies or something but they aren't. The books are the same as they were, and if you don't like the new media you can just ignore it and stick with the old stuff.
Congratulations! You have proven that you are at a complete loss when it comes to dealing with persons that dont share you elitis view on things, I enjoy the game not the books. As for the movies I have no real investment in them, but I get somewhat annoyed when you and your ilk comes along shouting from your ivory tower.
As for the recognition of the different people's, why is itthat every Scholr of Tolkien can cite legitimate and accurate references from Tolkien that would differentiate it's people's and nationalities with a ready ease, but you seem to think this not possible?
Is there perhaps something about Tolkien's work, of which you are unaware that points out these distinctions?
The bolded part is the issue. Not everyone who wants to be entertained by the story has the time, ability or inclination to become a scholar of the works, so playing up the different visual clues for the sake of easy identification is important in the medium of film. Yes, you could watch a true-to-book LotR and know the warriors with the horse on their banners are Rohirrim while the similar guys with the white tree emblem are Gondorians, but it's far easier to know, especially in the immense melees, that the guys in silver plate are from Gondor while the Rohirrim are wearing leather armour and capes.
This goes double for the minis, which is where this discussion began: on the table I can tell an unpainted Gondor and Rohan arm apart from six feet, whereas if both were just guys in chainmail until you get into minutiae you'd be hard pressed to make that distinction, scholar or not.
Again, this is saying nothing more than "I don't think Tolkien's work is good enough to stand on its own. Someone must adulterate it before it is acceptable."
How would you know if it is a better adaptations do you are not given a chance to have illustrated many of the deeper significances or symbolism that Jackson removed, mocked, or wholly destroyed?
...
As you have said yourself: You don't think Tolkien's work is worthy of adaptation without adulteration. It is not good enough as it stands.
If that is what you think, then you should own that belief, and not try to apologize for it.
But if that is the case, then you also really can't call an adulterated adaptation of Tolkien's work, Tolkien's. It would be, as Peter Jackson accurately reports on his products: The creation of Peter Jackson, inspired by JRR Tolkien.
You apparently prefer the diluted, adulterated version better than the original, or the original would be worthy in its own right to stand on its own merits.
But to most viewers, the point of the thing is not the depth of allegory or message that you'd need to be a scholar of Tolkien to even be familiar with, it's about the story and the spectacle and being entertained, and the films do all of that perfectly well and lose nothing for the additions/alterations/'adulterations' made. Even if it were possible to make a version that maintained all that is great about the films while still keeping everything by the book (which I doubt), I see no way in which it could achieve the goal of entertaining the viewer and telling a good story better than the current ones, simply because as films they are about as close to perfect as you can get. The average viewer is watching to see the adventures of the Fellowship and a healthy dose of orc-slaying, flavoured with the best battle scenese ever committed to film and a breathtaking array of visuals, and doesn't give two gaks whether or not we're seeing what Tolkien intended or getting the full depth of his vision. Sounds selfish, but that's the way it is.
As for Tolkien's work not being 'worthy', that's not what I'm trying to say (although the only area where he is truly exceptional is in creating a setting, in everything else he is really nothing overly special). What I am trying to say is that there is no need to replace or dismiss the films just because they are not 'accurate', when they are still superlative works of entertainment that, to most, give a perfectly satisfactoryc presentation of LotR. Perhaps, unlikely as I believe it is, a more faithful version could be made that would be just as good, but why would you when the existing iteration fulfills its purpose perfectly well? To the majority, it ain't broke, and therefore doesn't need fixing.
Mysterious Pants wrote: BeAfraid, I think your points are very interesting despite the off-putting arrogance of your tone.
The Jackson films are film adaptations of Tolkien's work, just as the LOTR miniature's game is a tabletop adaptation of the work. They are a different content producers vision of the work, a derivative of the original work. And that's how it should be.
Tolkiens vision literally interpreted on the silver screen would be nigh-impossible to do, and unwatchable. The focus and tone of his books make for good books, but directly adapted would make extremely poor movies, because of the media differences between literature and cinema.
There's nothing wrong with adapting something from the past for modern audiences as long as you make sure to broadly stay in the themes of the original work, which Jackson was clearly very careful to do. Adding more derivative works to LOTR doesn't change the original work or devalue it in any way, it adds more to the mythos and gives more for people to enjoy.
And there is a key disagreement.
I think Tolkien's works could stand on their own Merit, and I have many other people in the film industry who believe the same thing (people I hav worked with for a long time).
The problem is, no one has presented a cogent argument for the changes that Jackson made to Tolkien's works, which turn out to be both contradictory to Tolkien's main history defined for Middle-earth, as well as being contradictory to the film's own internal narrative (how did the Witch King rule the Kindgom of Angmar if he had been entombed with the rest of the Wraiths since the Battle of the Last Alliance, just as a start?). Those changes do not appear to be "careful" at all. They come off, to everyone knowledgeable about Tolkien, as being hacks, andsloppy executions, and egregious alterations that did nothing but alienate those who know better, and spread ignorance to those who do not.
And, yes, adding certain things to a work of art can and does devalued it if that addition is contrary to the original artist's goals and intentions.
The analogies I used previously illustrate this exactly.
As for my "tone," I know of no way to communicate these points other than how I have. I am speaking as I would about any other subject that demands a certain amount of academic clarity, which online, and outside of academic forums seems to cause a great deal of defensiveness in people's rush to an emotional response. There seems to be a rush to judgment rather than to stop and consider what I have written (and I make this observation based upon years of watching students in classes do the exact same thing when they cannot separate their emotions from an issue that requires thought and reason rather than feeling and emotion - and the mistaking of an opposing argument for emotion, rather than reason out of a projection.... Oh! And the fact that I used to do the exact same thing when I used to react emotionally first - instead of listening to what an opposing argument was, and then responding to that actual Al argument).
The problem is: there is really no other way to communicate these issues.
If you think there is another way to communicate these issues, then maybe you could take my position in this argument, and present my own arguments as you think they should be presented, without what you believe to be an "arrogant tone?"
If you can't make your point without being a dick, maybe stop making your point. And if you can't bear to see people be wrong about Tolkien, maybe stop coming to this forum.
As for the recognition of the different people's, why is itthat every Scholr of Tolkien can cite legitimate and accurate references from Tolkien that would differentiate it's people's and nationalities with a ready ease, but you seem to think this not possible?
Is there perhaps something about Tolkien's work, of which you are unaware that points out these distinctions?
The bolded part is the issue. Not everyone who wants to be entertained by the story has the time, ability or inclination to become a scholar of the works, so playing up the different visual clues for the sake of easy identification is important in the medium of film. Yes, you could watch a true-to-book LotR and know the warriors with the horse on their banners are Rohirrim while the similar guys with the white tree emblem are Gondorians, but it's far easier to know, especially in the immense melees, that the guys in silver plate are from Gondor while the Rohirrim are wearing leather armour and capes.
This goes double for the minis, which is where this discussion began: on the table I can tell an unpainted Gondor and Rohan arm apart from six feet, whereas if both were just guys in chainmail until you get into minutiae you'd be hard pressed to make that distinction, scholar or not.
What you seem to have missed, is that the Distinctions do exist, you are just not aware that the distinctions exist, or you would not be saying that the world is "generic" and "bland."
People who are not scholars are often, and usually able to point out these distinctions.
Not to mention that Tolkien himself did several paintings that illustrate some of these distinctions clearly enough to be able to base the representations on Tolkien's work, and not have to alter/adulterated/abuse his work in order to highlight them.
And, like the hands of Plato and Aristotle, altering their positions removes any opportunity in the future for you to discover a deeper and more meaningful (and in some cases, tremendously humourous) significance to that work.
If you alter something from the original atist's conception, you remove all opportunity to later learn more from it.
In other words: you have destroyed information, content, signifiance, beauty, ugliness, etc.
You will never even have the opportunity to know what is missing.
Again, this is saying nothing more than "I don't think Tolkien's work is good enough to stand on its own. Someone must adulterate it before it is acceptable."
How would you know if it is a better adaptations do you are not given a chance to have illustrated many of the deeper significances or symbolism that Jackson removed, mocked, or wholly destroyed?
...
As you have said yourself: You don't think Tolkien's work is worthy of adaptation without adulteration. It is not good enough as it stands.
If that is what you think, then you should own that belief, and not try to apologize for it.
But if that is the case, then you also really can't call an adulterated adaptation of Tolkien's work, Tolkien's. It would be, as Peter Jackson accurately reports on his products: The creation of Peter Jackson, inspired by JRR Tolkien.
You apparently prefer the diluted, adulterated version better than the original, or the original would be worthy in its own right to stand on its own merits.
But to most viewers, the point of the thing is not the depth of allegory or message that you'd need to be a scholar of Tolkien to even be familiar with, it's about the story and the spectacle and being entertained, and the films do all of that perfectly well and lose nothing for the additions/alterations/'adulterations' made. Even if it were possible to make a version that maintained all that is great about the films while still keeping everything by the book (which I doubt), I see no way in which it could achieve the goal of entertaining the viewer and telling a good story better than the current ones, simply because as films they are about as close to perfect as you can get. The average viewer is watching to see the adventures of the Fellowship and a healthy dose of orc-slaying, flavoured with the best battle scenese ever committed to film and a breathtaking array of visuals, and doesn't give two gaks whether or not we're seeing what Tolkien intended or getting the full depth of his vision. Sounds selfish, but that's the way it is.
As for Tolkien's work not being 'worthy', that's not what I'm trying to say (although the only area where he is truly exceptional is in creating a setting, in everything else he is really nothing overly special). What I am trying to say is that there is no need to replace or dismiss the films just because they are not 'accurate', when they are still superlative works of entertainment that, to most, give a perfectly satisfactoryc presentation of LotR. Perhaps, unlikely as I believe it is, a more faithful version could be made that would be just as good, but why would you when the existing iteration fulfills its purpose perfectly well? To the majority, it ain't broke, and therefore doesn't need fixing.
Again, in other words:
Tolkien's works are not good enough to stand on their own merit, and thus people should be denied all opportunity to discover a deeper or alternative meaning or significance because it is just too difficult for some people, and should be dumbed down.
As for being a "perfectly satisfactory presentation of LotR...."
How can you say this if you are not aware even of why it is impotant that the Elves' swords be straight, and cruciform?
What else is that there you are not aware of, which could be totally destroying the representation of Tolkien's works?
Again, I come back to Plato and Arostotle's hands in Raphael's School of Athens. If the positions of those hands is changed, the hands removed altogether, or the characters of Plato and Aristotle are removed altogether, you go from destroying a major significance, to destroying the entire paintin's meaning simply because of the absence of a detail of which you may have been wholly unaware.
This lack of awareness has removed forever people's ability to get the joke between Aristotle and Plato in the painting, or if the characters are removed completely, then you no longer even have the context in which any meaning exists at all.
You go from having Raphael's School of Athens to Raphael paints some random people in a building.
How is it, if you are no Tolkien Scholar, that you can even make the claim that it is a "perfectly satisfactory adaptation???"
If you are not aware of the deeper details, how do you know what is even relevant beyond the superficial?
To your very last comment.
This is another "Appeal to Popularity."
If the majority are not even aware of what is broken, then how can they even know it needs fixing (I am pretty sure there is a Grimm's Fairy Tale about this exact point).
This is again, pointing out that because a majority of people are not aware of the Joke that Raphael painting into the positions of Aristotle and Plato's hands in The School of Athens that somehow their lack of awareness means that the joke is not there for them to eventually learn of.
And of the positions oftheir hands were to be changed (thus removing the subtle message), then the majority of people would simply be forever unaware that they missed something poignant, important, significant, and which would have enriched their lives.
Again, how we can't you make that point if you are not aware of the significance of what is missing?
It is as if people are happy with meatloaf, stating it is the pinnacle of bovine flesh delicacies, when they are not even aware that such a thing as Filet Mignon or Beef Wellington even exist.
Have you ever considered that (a) more faithful adaptation(s) of Tolkien's work might inspire better miniatures, available more cheaply, and with a broader variety of games available to support the miniatures than GW is providing, and that being stuck on Jackson's depictions might be equivalent to the crowd satisfied with their meatloaf, while they could be having filet mignon or beef Wellington?
So, about the point of the thread (sorry guys, been busy for a while so I have been neglecting this forum! Will be back to posting in a few days)
I think it's looking more and more likely that GW are going to can the LOTR/Hobbit games. Which is a damn shame. I will be ordering what I need to finish off my collections soonish, but it is financially inconvenient for me to have to rush because they might go out of production. Sigh.
I would like it if GW would let us know what is going on so I knew how much time I had to make purchases. It really does annoy me that they won't do that, and I could miss out a chance to buy some of this stuff through normal channels (I have never used Ebay and I don't really want to start).
BeAfraid wrote: If you think there is another way to communicate these issues, then maybe you could take my position in this argument, and present my own arguments as you think they should be presented, without what you believe to be an "arrogant tone?"
It's not a big thing, but if you're actually wondering why you seem so arrogant and superior to other people in this thread, check it out.
Spoiler:
BeAfraid wrote: ...not that I am surprised, as most people outside of academia or the film industry itself don't understand the point.
But.... I am likely wasting my time here, as I don't think people are understanding this distinction based upon the replies.
>"I'm wasting my time here, people are too stupid to understand my wit"
Again and again, you basically went ahead and compared people who like the movies/miniatures game to slobbering fans of professional wrestling, referenced your training in art and your connections to the people who "really know about Lord of The Rings", used superior sounding language and concluded it with garbled academic nonsense
BeAfraid wrote: P.S. I am intentionally using synonyms that are somewhat contentious in order to illustrate the basal meanings involved. They might lack subtlety, but they more accurately draw attention to the basic point. For example. Something that is not a 100% solution, in chemistry is said to be "Adulterated," or "Diluted."
>What is this?
I'm afraid you do come off as a bit of someone who smells their own farts.
It would be like if you went to order a burger and you were like "Why hello ma'am, I am here for some confectioneries to sample. I completely understand my genteel background might place me at too high a station for you, peasant, but I am a true connoisseur and very interested in a light exchange. I hope your establishment can appreciate a man of my tastes. Indubitably. "
BeAfraid wrote: If you alter something from the original atist's conception, you remove all opportunity to later learn more from it.
In other words: you have destroyed information, content, signifiance, beauty, ugliness, etc.
You will never even have the opportunity to know what is missing.
You aren't destroying anything, by definition, when you're adding derivative works. The original work is still there, 100%, unaltered.
Are you really denying people the opportunity to learn about the original work by making more stuff based on it? It doesn't make any sense. Those who are more interested in the derivative works than the original work wouldn't like to original work in the first place anyway, even if none of the "bad" derivative works existed.
With this whole "destruction of beauty" schtick, I don't think you'd like this very much.
Spoiler:
In making a stamp of the Mona Lisa, and producing a derivative work, I guess the Mona Lisa is permanently destroyed. So we might as well throw it away.
And, again, just becauseany number of people are ignorant of the significance of a work of art (or even it's significance) does not make it any less horrific to those who Do understand the significance when they see that work of art destroyed in some fashion.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you heavily on this point. The work of art has not been destroyed. It is still right there, and accessible in its current form. Unless you are claiming that having seen the film permanently warps someone to the point of being incapable of appreciating the books in the way you currently do...?
Da Boss wrote: So, about the point of the thread (sorry guys, been busy for a while so I have been neglecting this forum! Will be back to posting in a few days)
I think it's looking more and more likely that GW are going to can the LOTR/Hobbit games. Which is a damn shame. I will be ordering what I need to finish off my collections soonish, but it is financially inconvenient for me to have to rush because they might go out of production. Sigh.
I would like it if GW would let us know what is going on so I knew how much time I had to make purchases. It really does annoy me that they won't do that, and I could miss out a chance to buy some of this stuff through normal channels (I have never used Ebay and I don't really want to start).
For the availability of the current miniatures, their treatment of their product is already a shame.
As others have pointed out, if the Perry's eventually wind up with the remains of the license, they would likely treat it vastly better than has GW.
But....
Have you ever stopped to think, as I pointed out elsewhere, that attachment to GW's product could be preventing you from realizing you could have much, much better than GW has ever provided?
Popular games always create a turmoil when they go out of print.
But the impermanence of things seems to be a fact of life that agencies like GW only make all the more painful.
Tolkien's works are not good enough to stand on their own merit, and thus people should be denied all opportunity to discover a deeper or alternative meaning or significance because it is just too difficult for some people, and should be dumbed down.
Er, no. Those who are so inclined can still go and find that meaning, the books and all of Tolkien's writings still exist and can be studied. On the other hand, the vast majority of people who just want to watch an enjoyable film and don't give a damb about Christian allegories or the shape of Elven swords can do so and be entertained by it. Which ultimately, is the point of making a film, especially in this genre.
If you aren't satisfied by what the films offer then no one is forcing you to watch them, but ultimately Tolkien's work, in wherever form you believe it to have survived in, has reached millions if not billions of people that would never have ever opened one of his books through being made fikmns, and they have enjoyed that, which is, again, the point. If I were Tolkien, I'd be more pleased that people enjoyed my creation than I would be that a comparatively small number of people looked deeper.
As for being a "perfectly satisfactory presentation of LotR...."
How can you say this if you are not aware even of why it is impotant that the Elves' swords be straight, and cruciform?
What else is that there you are not aware of, which could be totally destroying the representation of Tolkien's works?
Satisfactory, as I say, to the huge majority of people that appreciated the films as entertainment and as a narrative. Do you really think that the film would somehow be better as a form of entertainment if one were to replace all the Elves' weapons with straight ones, or stripped the Uruks of their plate armour, or in the case of the Hobbit, had Gandaslf randomly disappeared and return whenever the plot required it?
If it wouldn't, then why bother, and if it would then you perhaps need to reconsider the reasons you're watching a fantasy film in the first place.
And, again, just becauseany number of people are ignorant of the significance of a work of art (or even it's significance) does not make it any less horrific to those who Do understand the significance when they see that work of art destroyed in some fashion.
I'm sorry, but I'm going to disagree with you heavily on this point. The work of art has not been destroyed. It is still right there, and accessible in its current form. Unless you are claiming that having seen the film permanently warps someone to the point of being incapable of appreciating the books in the way you currently do...?
You are closer to an actual point here than anyone else who has yet responded to me (technically, there was one other, where I made a mistake in understanding what was said, but that has been lost in the noise, and I cannot remember what it was).
But as to yours.
In the case of a work of art being adapted to a movie that garners popular appeal....
Firstly, there is the damage off he erased information from the adaptation.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, that adaptation forever loses its ability to convey accurate information about what has been changed.
True, it does not alter the original source, which more enterprising people are still free to explore.
But look at the resistance here to looking at the original sources (which extend FAR, far beyond just The Hobbit and The Lord of thee Rings or The Silmarillion). And gamers are likely to be vastly more motivated to explore such things than would be the general public.
Then there is the legal aspect of the Licenses involved with the production of the "adaptation" (technically, it is an "inspiration" and not an "adaptation" by Film Industry Standards Definitions. It is an "adaptation" by popular definition) which prevent anyone from correcting what could be alterations that are incredibly insulting to the creator or owner/inheritor of a work.
Then there is the expectations that come with hoping to see a beloved work of art adapted to another medium. And that adaptation horrifically failed in those expectations, in addition to adding insult to the family belonging to the artist who produced those works.
We might as well say that the Lion Gates of Ninevah, destroyed by ISIS are not really destroyed, because we have accurate enough details to nearly faithfully reproduce them as stone carvings, even going as far as taking the stones from the quarries used to originally construct Ninevah.
I understand your point that this is not wholly equivalent to the destruction of a physical artifact.
But it still introduced error and ignorance into the world which the Sciences have discovered to be much more difficult to UN-do than to originally introduce.
HOWEVER. . . The original point remains that just because a population is ignorant of what is occurring, does not make it any less salient to those who are aware of the significance of an occurrence.
You have denied people an opportunity to share in the experience of the original artist and what he/she was trying to communicate.
Tolkien's works are not good enough to stand on their own merit, and thus people should be denied all opportunity to discover a deeper or alternative meaning or significance because it is just too difficult for some people, and should be dumbed down.
Er, no. Those who are so inclined can still go and find that meaning, the books and all of Tolkien's writings still exist and can be studied. On the other hand, the vast majority of people who just want to watch an enjoyable film and don't give a damb about Christian allegories or the shape of Elven swords can do so and be entertained by it. Which ultimately, is the point of making a film, especially in this genre.
If you aren't satisfied by what the films offer then no one is forcing you to watch them, but ultimately Tolkien's work, in wherever form you believe it to have survived in, has reached millions if not billions of people that would never have ever opened one of his books through being made fikmns, and they have enjoyed that, which is, again, the point. If I were Tolkien, I'd be more pleased that people enjoyed my creation than I would be that a comparatively small number of people looked deeper.
As for being a "perfectly satisfactory presentation of LotR...."
How can you say this if you are not aware even of why it is impotant that the Elves' swords be straight, and cruciform?
What else is that there you are not aware of, which could be totally destroying the representation of Tolkien's works?
Satisfactory, as I say, to the huge majority of people that appreciated the films as entertainment and as a narrative. Do you really think that the film would somehow be better as a form of entertainment if one were to replace all the Elves' weapons with straight ones, or stripped the Uruks of their plate armour, or in the case of the Hobbit, had Gandaslf randomly disappeared and return whenever the plot required it?
If it wouldn't, then why bother, and if it would then you perhaps need to reconsider the reasons you're watching a fantasy film in the first place.
Then in what way is it Tolkien if it does not communicate, nor tell the story Tolkien wished to tell?
As for why bother?
I think I have explained that more times than I can count:
• Because it is the destruction of information.
• Because it perpetuates ignorance that is easier to spread to begin with than to correct later (denies people the opportunity to share in the original creators' works - see ignorance being easier to introduce than to correct.
And if it makes no difference.......
Why not do it correctly to begin with, so that information is not lost or destroyed in the adaptation.
The people who do not know the difference will be none the wiser, yet will not have had a fiction and ignorance introduced into their lives.
And the people who DO know the difference would not be upset by the perversion of a famous work of art.
This goes straight back to Raphael's Plato and Aristotle.
You might be able to create a WILDLY POPULAR depiction of the pair that you claimed was Raphael's, but had no relation to the actual product of Raphael.
And people might never know that they had been lied to about the pair.
But it would:
• Not be Raphael's work.
• Not have even the ability to communicate what the pair actually communicate (people would have to do something most people would be reluctant to do, or maybe not have the opportunity to do: Track down the original).
• Perpetuate ignorance by introducing a false impression of a work into society under a pretext it was the product of a famous artist.
Every response boils down to:
Tolkien's work isn't good enough to be accurately adapted to another medium.
BeAfraid wrote: You are closer to an actual point here than anyone else who has yet responded to me
See, just give me a sec and let's examine your analogy.
So you compared it to the Lion Gates of Ninevah being destroyed by ISIS.
But what it's closer to, imagine this- if ISIS had built their own copy of the lion gates and not destroyed the original. And it was built in a way that attracted the general public more than the actual historical relics, and maybe didn't match up so exactly with the original gates. So this historians back at the museum are pissed off at how successful the new Lion Gates are.
See, the movies have also served as a fantastic way of getting people interested in Tolkien's mythos, and I've known more than one person who is drawn in by the flashy movies and winds up reading the Silmarion and all of Tolkien's other writings, becoming interested in the scholarly aspect of it. Wouldn't that be a success, by your definition? Someone who originally has no knowledge of Lord of the Rings getting interested in the "real thing" through the derivative work. Maybe they would have never even heard of it if it weren't for the movies.
As for the "real story" being told in a different way, I personally believe that LOTR should be public domain and freely usable by anyone for any reason. So if I had my way, anyone could be making Lord of The Rings movies.
BeAfraid wrote: You are closer to an actual point here than anyone else who has yet responded to me
See, just give me a sec and let's examine your analogy.
So you compared it to the Lion Gates of Ninevah being destroyed by ISIS.
But what it's closer to, imagine this- if ISIS had built their own copy of the lion gates and not destroyed the original. And it was built in a way that attracted the general public more than the actual historical relics, and maybe didn't match up so exactly with the original gates. So this historians back at the museum are pissed off at how successful the new Lion Gates are.
See, the movies have also served as a fantastic way of getting people interested in Tolkien's mythos, and I've known more than one person who is drawn in by the flashy movies and winds up reading the Silmarion and all of Tolkien's other writings, becoming interested in the scholarly aspect of it. Wouldn't that be a success, by your definition? Someone who originally has no knowledge of Lord of the Rings getting interested in the "real thing" through the derivative work. Maybe they would have never even heard of it if it weren't for the movies.
As for the "real story" being told in a different way, I personally believe that LOTR should be public domain and freely usable by anyone for any reason. So if I had my way, anyone could be making Lord of The Rings movies.
Ok... The movies have drawn interest to Tolkien's work.
And the Documentary we are working on is looking at exploring just what that interest has been:
• How many people who see it then go on to read the books?
• How many people who see it had already read the books?
• Out of all of them, how many of them are concerned with the 2500 years of Middle-earth's history that Peter Jackson just tossed aside for no apparent reasonL
• How many of them who read the books are even aware of the differences (we have found, so far, enough to be concerned at their ability to remember what they even saw)?
In the Academic Community (to which I belong more than any other), Peter Jackson's works are seen in about the same light as the current US Conservative denial of Climate Change or Evolution. They are a massive introduction of ignorance that will take MASSIVELY more effort to undo that it took Peter Jackson to do to begin with.
As for the ISIS analogy, it is not perfect, but even if they destroyed copies, if the population was not aware they were copies (as most of the population seems to be unaware about the movies, thinking they are the actual product - the terrain and not the map - Nd not simply "copies") the effect is the same.
Ignorance has been introduced that takes exponentially more effort to undo than it took to introduce to begin with.
The contention of most academics I know is that there is sufficient source material to be able to produce a faithful, accurate adaptation of ANY of Tolkien's works, and that they would be just as successful as Peter Jackson's, yet they would show people the actual product, as the creator intended (or as close as we can get to what Tolkien intended - it seems that he never intended the adaptation of Middle-earth to go beyond static paintings - he did not like movies or stage plays overly much).
In the movie industry (with which I have been associated on-and-off, and worked in, since 1986/87)) there is equally the feeling that Tolkien's work, more faithfully reproduced, would be just as successful, or more so, than Peter Jackson's (although, here, we have caveats, in that it might not be as huge a "spectacle" and more of a critical success at first). Think the 2003 Adaptation of Battlestar Galactica. There was a huge critical acclaim for the miniseries when it came out, but it faced a HUGE backlash from those faithful to the original series. Yet in the end, BSG is now one of the most wildly successful Sci-Fi series ever produced.
Tolkien's work, if it were more faithfully adapted, could see the same sort of acclaim.
To that end, many of those in "The Industry" believe that Tolkien's work belongs on Cable-TV as a many years' long series than on the Big Screen (although it technically could be adapted to both). As the ability to include the minutia in a Cable Series of Five to Ten Years would, like GRRM'S Game of Thrones, would prevent a lot of corner cutting that occurs in movies.
I am not arguing that Jackson's movies have not been a wild popular success.
I am not arguing that they are "Bad Movies." (At least the first trilogy. We could only stand watching The Hobbit because we had to for the doc). And even in The Hobbit there are a few moments that are priceless.
I am simply stating, like Peter Jackson even states in the credits of the movies:
They are not really Tolkien, and that confusion is creating a problem.
Also... I am DEFINITELY STATING:
They not only could have been done better, but they can be done better, and that the sooner that Saul Zaentz (and thus New Line, and Weta, and Jackson as a result) lose that license, the sooner we will hav something better.
OH! I remember what else it was that I mistook!
Yes... There will always be a license to produce miniatures (possibly. I know that the Estate has reservations about the Gaming Industry, but not so much about "Artistic Representations").
It isn't so much about money there, as it is about the fact that Mithril's license extends beyond Saul Zaentz (although it was derived from him), and that many in the Tolkien Family find Mithril's work to be more closely aligned with what they believe to be JRR Tolkien's vision).
There is perhaps the one point about the Tolkien Estate that everyone should learn:
• They care VASTLY MORE about values, integrity, and an understanding of Tolkien's work than they do about money. And this is codified into their Charter by both JRR nd CJR Tolkien.
So... Any future works, or miniatures, past the expiration of Saul Zaentz's (and thus New Line) license on Middle-earth will depend upon the creator's ability to show a dedication to what the Tolkien Estate would consider an honest depiction of Tolkien'ss work.
Which I think is still very likely to happen, and to produce a better product than someone more ℅ corned with money.
At present, if you wanted to make LOTR inspired stuff that followed the books exactly, that is pretty much totally possible.
I do like the LOTR stuff for it's connection to the books, but I actually mostly like them because they are plastic, finely sculpted "true scale" rather than "heroic scale" miniatures representing generic fantasy tropes. GW's Elves are much better than other options (in my opinion) due to their simpler, cleaner nature. Similarly, the Mordor Orcs and so on make a good bunch of hobgoblins for D'n'D or wargaming, even detached from the source material. They're good minis, in a format I like (I'm a weirdo who actually slightly prefers monopose to multipart).
I wish GW would leave them in production or even support them. But GW don't seem too interested in producing much that I want to purchase, these days.
You are closer to an actual point here than anyone else who has yet responded to me (technically, there was one other, where I made a mistake in understanding what was said, but that has been lost in the noise, and I cannot remember what it was).
Assuming you are an academic (based on what you posted previously), as friendly advice one academic to another, you need to realise that this phrase is patronising to myself, and offensive to anyone else participating in this discussion. Having an advanced degree/doctorate in a humanities subject does not render us above anybody else, and talking like it does is likely to just annoy everybody else to the point where they simply do not wish to engage with you.
But as to yours.
In the case of a work of art being adapted to a movie that garners popular appeal....
Firstly, there is the damage off he erased information from the adaptation.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, that adaptation forever loses its ability to convey accurate information about what has been changed.
Errr.....the 'adaptation' as you put it, does not have conveying 'information about what has been changed' as a target goal. No adaptation does, except for potentially a page by the author in the front of a written derivative work. This does not mean all derivative works/adaptations damage the originals.
True, it does not alter the original source, which more enterprising people are still free to explore.
So you would agree that claiming the original work has been destroyed is simply hyperbole?
But look at the resistance here to looking at the original sources (which extend FAR, far beyond just The Hobbit and The Lord of thee Rings or The Silmarillion). And gamers are likely to be vastly more motivated to explore such things than would be the general public.
Then there is the legal aspect of the Licenses involved with the production of the "adaptation" (technically, it is an "inspiration" and not an "adaptation" by Film Industry Standards Definitions. It is an "adaptation" by popular definition) which prevent anyone from correcting what could be alterations that are incredibly insulting to the creator or owner/inheritor of a work.
I'm sorry, but if you produce an artistic work, and are offended by subsequent adaptations/derivative works, you are a bit of a idiot. So much of art and literature grabs from works before it, to greater and lesser extents, and complaining because somebody took inspiration from your work (after you doubtless grabbed from what came before with both hands yourself) is petty and small minded. Trying to 'correct' their work also implies that your work is objectively better, which is a ludicrous concept when it comes to art or literature.
Then there is the expectations that come with hoping to see a beloved work of art adapted to another medium. And that adaptation horrifically failed in those expectations, in addition to adding insult to the family belonging to the artist who produced those works.
To build on the above, taking offence because somebody makes an adaptation/derivative version of something created by a person they happen to be genetically related to, is ridiculous. They have no greater claim to deciding what is better/more accurate than anybody else. Blood does not impart the mental processes or claims of the original creator (using the word loosely). You can be offended and insulted if you like, but there's no reason anybody else should have to pay any attention to you.
But it still introduced error and ignorance into the world which the Sciences have discovered to be much more difficult to UN-do than to originally introduce.
Again, this introduction concept of 'error' and 'ignorance' into a field of such subjectivity makes me raise an eyebrow. Please demonstrate for me how one can guarantee one receives a 'correct' interpretation of a piece of literature, and also how one can guarantee that interpretation is the one the author wished to impart?
. . . The original point remains that just because a population is ignorant of what is occurring, does not make it any less salient to those who are aware of the significance of an occurrence.
You have denied people an opportunity to share in the experience of the original artist and what he/she was trying to communicate.
No, the book is right there still. Saying it has been 'destroyed' is grossly generalised exaggeration. Claiming you have the correct interpretation of what the author was trying to communicate is ludicrous, and claiming that what the author intended was the correct way to interpret something is even more so. The use of such generalised assertions of objectivity should be a warning sign to anyone who works in the humanities.
Nobody has been denied anything. Nothing has been destroyed. Anybody who was likely to read the works is most likely still going to do so(I don't know many people who saw 'A Clockwork Orange' and went, "Well I never need to read the book now!").
You are closer to an actual point here than anyone else who has yet responded to me (technically, there was one other, where I made a mistake in understanding what was said, but that has been lost in the noise, and I cannot remember what it was).
Assuming you are an academic (based on what you posted previously), as friendly advice one academic to another, you need to realise that this phrase is patronising to myself, and offensive to anyone else participating in this discussion. Having an advanced degree/doctorate in a humanities subject does not render us above anybody else, and talking like it does is likely to just annoy everybody else to the point where they simply do not wish to engage with you.
Maybe so. But given the ferocity of defensiveness, and general amount of noise (and the fact that I made an effort to track down this particular point, mentioned here, and address it), makes your admonition kinda beside the point.
The point was not about anyone being above or below anyone, it is about having more information about a topic than another: expertise, something the humanities in the USA has been particularly unkind to with the prevalence of a great deal of Post-Modern ideology in that sector (I am in the hard sciences, and working towards degrees in Cybernetics and Cognitive Sciences, but have an undergrad degree in the Fine Arts from when I was younger, dealing with the study of the Art of the Early Christian Church - mostly heretical stuff).
But as to yours.
In the case of a work of art being adapted to a movie that garners popular appeal....
Firstly, there is the damage off he erased information from the adaptation.
As I have pointed out elsewhere, that adaptation forever loses its ability to convey accurate information about what has been changed.
Errr.....the 'adaptation' as you put it, does not have conveying 'information about what has been changed' as a target goal. No adaptation does, except for potentially a page by the author in the front of a written derivative work. This does not mean all derivative works/adaptations damage the originals.
No, it does not mean that all derivative works or adaptations damage the originals.
At no point did I say this.
My claim is only about a Peter Jackson's attempt to show us Modanna cradling the body of Justin Beiber and tell us it is Michelangelo's Rondannini Pietá (as an analogy).
That is dishonest if it isn't conveyed very clearly that the adaptation is only peripherally related to the original. The disclaimers at the end of the credits are something most people are never going to see. They have, in effect, been lied to.
This "damages" the original by spreading a misconception/misinformation that the adaptation faithfully conveys the work of the original artist.
It presents a false image.
See Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway's work: Merchants of Doubt for how a brand can be damaged by presenting an inaccurate depiction as if it was a verifiable account of a thing.
Why do you think people had to set up things like Politi-Fact, or Snopes? Because it is harder to undo a false impression after the fact than it is to present accurate information, even if that information is more challenging, to begin with (Oreskes and Conway's thesis that gave birth to their book).
Why should we tolerate misinformation in the arts any more than in any other area?
True, it does not alter the original source, which more enterprising people are still free to explore.
So you would agree that claiming the original work has been destroyed is simply hyperbole?
You do love taking quotes out of context.
In the context in which I originally made the claim, no, it is not hyperbole.
Some examples are extreme simply to show that a continuum exists, and that there is an example that is as true as we can possibly get, and there is an example that is as false as we can possibly get. And between lie varying degrees of truth or accuracy.
And at some point along that continuum, there is information contained in the original that is destroyed (see my example about the hands of Plato and Aristotle in Raphael's School of Athens.
You might have a depiction which alters the communication of information made by Raphael in the positioning of their hands. While this does not destroy the information in the original, it does destroy information for the purposes of communicating Raphael's intent. This no longer exists in the duplicated depiction. It is lost information, a transcription error.
In the computer sciences, that is called the destruction of information, regardless of whether that information still exists elsewhere.
It is information that is vastly less likely to be retrieved at any point.
But look at the resistance here to looking at the original sources (which extend FAR, far beyond just The Hobbit and The Lord of thee Rings or The Silmarillion). And gamers are likely to be vastly more motivated to explore such things than would be the general public.
Then there is the legal aspect of the Licenses involved with the production of the "adaptation" (technically, it is an "inspiration" and not an "adaptation" by Film Industry Standards Definitions. It is an "adaptation" by popular definition) which prevent anyone from correcting what could be alterations that are incredibly insulting to the creator or owner/inheritor of a work.
I'm sorry, but if you produce an artistic work, and are offended by subsequent adaptations/derivative works, you are a bit of a idiot. So much of art and literature grabs from works before it, to greater and lesser extents, and complaining because somebody took inspiration from your work (after you doubtless grabbed from what came before with both hands yourself) is petty and small minded. Trying to 'correct' their work also implies that your work is objectively better, which is a ludicrous concept when it comes to art or literature.
Objective standards do exist.
As I said before, there is a continuum where an adaptation can be as faithful as possible, to the other extreme of being as false as possible.
Being offended by what someone has done with an adaptation is not idiotic if it is an offense about the spreading of ignorance, which is what Peter Jackson ultimately did.
Anyone who was a Lover of Shakespeare would probably be pretty offended if someone tried to pass off the Smurfs as a faithful adaptation of Macbeth.
If they knew that it was some sort of Dadist Artistic commentary on Shakespear's as it relates to modern society, then they might find it entertaining and funny,
But passing off ignorance as knowledge is offensive.
Then there is the expectations that come with hoping to see a beloved work of art adapted to another medium. And that adaptation horrifically failed in those expectations, in addition to adding insult to the family belonging to the artist who produced those works.
To build on the above, taking offence because somebody makes an adaptation/derivative version of something created by a person they happen to be genetically related to, is ridiculous. They have no greater claim to deciding what is better/more accurate than anybody else. Blood does not impart the mental processes or claims of the original creator (using the word loosely). You can be offended and insulted if you like, but there's no reason anybody else should have to pay any attention to you.
But it still introduced error and ignorance into the world which the Sciences have discovered to be much more difficult to UN-do than to originally introduce.
Again, this introduction concept of 'error' and 'ignorance' into a field of such subjectivity makes me raise an eyebrow. Please demonstrate for me how one can guarantee one receives a 'correct' interpretation of a piece of literature, and also how one can guarantee that interpretation is the one the author wished to impart?
I have already done this so many times my head is beginnings to spin:
Raphael, Plato, Aristotle, Hands.
Madonna, Beiber' Rondannini Pietá.
Four guys in black robes handing out beer and pizza in an auditorium claiming to be a Catholic Mass.
Just because there is subjectivity in a depiction does not mean that there is subjectivity in the objective facts about a work of Art.
• The Mona Lisa is a woman.
• Bart Simpson is Homer and Marge Simpson's eldest child.
• Humans in the world of the Simpsons are both two-dimensional, and yellow (demonstrated in one of the First TreeHouses of Horror)
These same kinds of objective facts exist about Middle-earth.
There is subjectivity in the portrayal of these facts (Johhny Depp could have been cast as Aragorn instead of Viggo Mortsenson, and there would be no change to the general objective facts about Aragorn, only that a different actor held enough of the qualities to depict those objective facts - the Subjectvity has a metric, making it not really truly subjective).
If we had cast Danny DeVito as Aragorn, there would be absolutely no means of squaring Danny DeVito's appearance and mannerisms with the objective description of Aragorn as given to us by Tolkien (God Damn! I hate Post-Modernism. It is a blight upon the world that is destructive and ultimately evil)
. . . The original point remains that just because a population is ignorant of what is occurring, does not make it any less salient to those who are aware of the significance of an occurrence.
You have denied people an opportunity to share in the experience of the original artist and what he/she was trying to communicate.
No, the book is right there still. Saying it has been 'destroyed' is grossly generalised exaggeration. Claiming you have the correct interpretation of what the author was trying to communicate is ludicrous, and claiming that what the author intended was the correct way to interpret something is even more so. The use of such generalised assertions of objectivity should be a warning sign to anyone who works in the humanities.
Nobody has been denied anything. Nothing has been destroyed. Anybody who was likely to read the works is most likely still going to do so(I don't know many people who saw 'A Clockwork Orange' and went, "Well I never need to read the book now!").
Yes, they hVe been denied something.
The information no longer exists in that adaptation, and NONE of the people seeing it will EVER be able to recover the information from that source no matter how motivated they might be.
They will have to seek out another source, which is NOT Peter Jackson's movie in order to have access to that information.
I have already made it amply clear the distinction here between the films and the originals with more examples than I can count., as well as the definition of the destruction of information.
At this a point, it seems as if people are either intentionally trying to avoid understanding the point, or simply incapable of understanding the point (which is not a crime to have a topic be beyond your understanding if a legitimate attempt at understanding was made. I am not ever likely to fully understand GraphTheory very well, or Manifold Topology).
Besides... At this point, things have ventured so far beyond my original point that we could have better than what GW is providing that it is irrelevant to persist.
Actually discussing who could provide what GW is providing or better is an interesting point.
I know you are working on some models, BeAfraid. I can't remember if the plan is for them to be multipart plastic or not?
Who has the skill and manufacturing capability to match GW's LOTR? I think for example Tre Manor has the skill (more than enough) but not the production capacity to make multipart or monopose plastics to the same level of quality.
Out of companies with the capacity, we have Wargames Factory. Their Orcs look okay as far as things go, not wonderful but alright. But they make some consistent choices that I don't really like, sacrificing good posing for multipart construction and having the hands and weapons separate. As a painter/player, not a modeller, LOTR models as they stand are in my "sweet spot" as being easy to assemble, looking good, but also being in durable, chip resistant hard plastic.
I guess the absolute best case scenario would be the Perry Brothers somehow getting the license or deciding to do fantasy generics in the right style. But I don't see that as likely, unfortunately.
BeAfraid wrote: GW losing the license to Middle-earth would be the best thing to ever happen to it.
At this stage - yes. GW, however, used to do extremely well with the LotR license. Up to this date, the LotR skirmish rules are among the best tabletop rules there are on the market. Furthermore, with WHFB and 40k rules now being utter trash, LotR skirmish rules still are the, by far, best ruleset GW has ever published.
LotR only went downhill when GW turned on their greed machines and increased miniature prices by more than 100% (still can't wrap my head around this). Sales suddenly went downhill, along with the general LotR hype as the movies were over, and in the end, LotR went to the brink of extinction.
It's a damn shame.
On the upside, rules are...easily available and picking up LotR is extremely cheap on ebay and the likes.
Who has the skill and manufacturing capability to match GW's LOTR? I think for example Tre Manor has the skill (more than enough) but not the production capacity to make multipart or monopose plastics to the same level of quality.
Out of companies with the capacity, we have Wargames Factory. Their Orcs look okay as far as things go, not wonderful but alright. But they make some consistent choices that I don't really like, sacrificing good posing for multipart construction and having the hands and weapons separate. As a painter/player, not a modeller, LOTR models as they stand are in my "sweet spot" as being easy to assemble, looking good, but also being in durable, chip resistant hard plastic.
I guess the absolute best case scenario would be the Perry Brothers somehow getting the license or deciding to do fantasy generics in the right style. But I don't see that as likely, unfortunately.
This I agree with entirely. I don't see any range of minis out there in the genre that could really match GWsLotR in its quality, breadth or scope. WGF Saxons can pull duty as Rohirrim, and their orcs are fine for Mordor Uruks or the more muscular orcs of The Hobbit films, and I recently saw a spectacular Northmen/Angmar army using some Gripping Beast Vikings and Perry sergeants, I believe (http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=30707 well worth checking out), but the rest of the armies are left out in the cold.
What suitable minis are there to match Gondorians, or Easterlings, or especially Elves and Dwarves? Of the few that are, how many are affordable and in hard plastic? Pretty much none! And that's before you get into Trolls, Wargs or Ents, for which there are literally no stylistic matches out there, at least that I've come across. (By the way, if anyone does know any, please share! )
I would love to see the Perry's produce a range of Fantasy minis with the same kind of value and quality as their historical ones, but I believe they have stated in the past that they either can't (thanks to their leaving-GW contracts) or aren't interested in doing so. A colossal shame, really.
The fact is, regardless of your personal view of the range, getting into the game is going to be harder than ever, and people with in-progress armies that don't have compatible alternatives are going to be forced into panic-buying their remaining stuff or left at the mercy of eBay (look at what's happened to prices there since LotR stuff started to go OOP last year, and imagine what will happen when they can stick the OOP label on everything!). That can't ever be a good thing, and the fact that it's the best game/minis GW ever offered going only worsens the blow.
Maybe so. But given the ferocity of defensiveness, and general amount of noise (and the fact that I made an effort to track down this particular point, mentioned here, and address it), makes your admonition kinda beside the point.
The point was not about anyone being above or below anyone, it is about having more information about a topic than another: expertise, something the humanities in the USA has been particularly unkind to with the prevalence of a great deal of Post-Modern ideology in that sector (I am in the hard sciences, and working towards degrees in Cybernetics and Cognitive Sciences, but have an undergrad degree in the Fine Arts from when I was younger, dealing with the study of the Art of the Early Christian Church - mostly heretical stuff).
There are two points here I'd like to address. The first is the idea that you automatically have more 'expertise' than anyone else based on the fact that you have have an undergrad degree in Fine Arts. The internet is essentially a room full of cloaked strangers; for all you know half of them have more advanced degrees in the subject than you do. For good manners sake, it is best to assume that not everybody else has a lesser amount of information on a subject to you.
Secondly, if you cannot communicate a point politely without patronising the other parties in a conversation, you need to spend less time on the lecture pulpit, and more time talking to actual people. Arrogance is rarely considered a desirable social skill.
At no point did I say this.
And at no point did I claim it? Please re-read. I simply mentioned that virtually no adaptations or derivative works tick this extremely harsh criteria that you have established, and that this does not mean that they damage the original works. That is a far cry from saying that you claimed 'all derivative works/adaptations damage the original works'.
My claim is only about a Peter Jackson's attempt to show us Modanna cradling the body of Justin Beiber and tell us it is Michelangelo's Rondannini Pietá (as an analogy).
That is dishonest if it isn't conveyed very clearly that the adaptation is only peripherally related to the original. The disclaimers at the end of the credits are something most people are never going to see. They have, in effect, been lied to.
So you are saying the title should have been, 'The Lord of the Rings:- by Peter Jackson' as a title?
This "damages" the original by spreading a misconception/misinformation that the adaptation faithfully conveys the work of the original artist.
Rubbish. Everyone knows that a film will take artistic license with any previously written intellectual property, it has to do so in order to attempt to adequately communicate to us the story within the pages. Descriptive prose is all very well and good, but the written medium does not always translate well to the screen.
As pointed out already by somebody else, yes, you could make the effort to have absolutely everything shown in the way described in the book, but that would make it difficult for the cinema audience to differentiate between Gondor and Rohan, for example. So the two are given separate aesthetics.
This does not 'damage' the original book; if you're going to use that word on the internet, and mean something else altogether (a separate academic meaning), then you really need to work on your communication skills! Because surprisingly enough, most people on a international public forum will take the usage of a word by it's most common definition.
It presents a false image.
See Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway's work: Merchants of Doubt for how a brand can be damaged by presenting an inaccurate depiction as if it was a verifiable account of a thing.
Why do you think people had to set up things like Politi-Fact, or Snopes? Because it is harder to undo a false impression after the fact than it is to present accurate information, even if that information is more challenging, to begin with (Oreskes and Conway's thesis that gave birth to their book).
Why should we tolerate misinformation in the arts any more than in any other area?
These are exceptionally hard phrases, and distract from the original point. You claimed that Peter Jackson 'damaged' the original work by not accurately conveying exactly what had been changed.
I dispute this. I am asserting here that firstly;
1) Any adaptation/derivative work fails to meet this criteria, and as clearly not all of these could be claimed to be 'damaging the original work', that no sufficient distinction has been made as to why Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings should be separated from these.
2) Anyone with half a brain seeing a film expects it to not be completely identical to the book, as you cannot have a completely accurate translation between the two mediums. It is virtually impossible (barring of course, the creation of a written work specifically designed for adaptation for film, but those tend to be called movie scripts).
3)Finally, I assert that the original work is still there. You can claim that the image of specific points within the book held in popular culture have been modified, which I would agree with. But the usage of the word 'damage' is a loaded gun, it inherently has negative connotations as a word. Therefore I assert it is an inaccurate word to use.
You do love taking quotes out of context.
In the context in which I originally made the claim, no, it is not hyperbole.
Some examples are extreme simply to show that a continuum exists, and that there is an example that is as true as we can possibly get, and there is an example that is as false as we can possibly get. And between lie varying degrees of truth or accuracy.
And at some point along that continuum, there is information contained in the original that is destroyed (see my example about the hands of Plato and Aristotle in Raphael's School of Athens.
You might have a depiction which alters the communication of information made by Raphael in the positioning of their hands. While this does not destroy the information in the original, it does destroy information for the purposes of communicating Raphael's intent. This no longer exists in the duplicated depiction. It is lost information, a transcription error.
In the computer sciences, that is called the destruction of information, regardless of whether that information still exists elsewhere.
It is information that is vastly less likely to be retrieved at any point.
I'll refer you to my previous three points, as I believe they address everything said here.
Objective standards do exist.
Incorrect. If you trace everything back far enough to it's philosophical roots, you'll realise that that virtually all knowledge becomes subjective at some stage or another. Whilst that eventually tends to draw down to a rather pointless form of nihilism, it is useful as a reasoning tool. The implicit assumption here is that when stating that the potential need for 'corrections', you need to be able to reason/prove as to why one version is the 'correct' version.
Which despite the following analogies, you have yet to do.
As I said before, there is a continuum where an adaptation can be as faithful as possible, to the other extreme of being as false as possible.
Being offended by what someone has done with an adaptation is not idiotic if it is an offense about the spreading of ignorance, which is what Peter Jackson ultimately did.
Anyone who was a Lover of Shakespeare would probably be pretty offended if someone tried to pass off the Smurfs as a faithful adaptation of Macbeth.
Funnily enough, I actually saw a WW1 adaptation of Shakespeare's 'Henry V'. They changed the setting, most of the descriptive text of the locations/context (to fit WW1) and the occasional word.
That was done by a group dedicated to Shakespeare. If Shakespeare found this offensive, that would be mildly entertaining, but somehow, I doubt he'd care. I also doubt he'd be obsessed with this need for disclaimers everywhere, or their use of 'Henry V: by Will Shake' in advertising it.
I have already done this so many times my head is beginnings to spin:
Raphael, Plato, Aristotle, Hands.
Madonna, Beiber' Rondannini Pietá.
Four guys in black robes handing out beer and pizza in an auditorium claiming to be a Catholic Mass.
Just because there is subjectivity in a depiction does not mean that there is subjectivity in the objective facts about a work of Art.
• The Mona Lisa is a woman.
• Bart Simpson is Homer and Marge Simpson's eldest child.
• Humans in the world of the Simpsons are both two-dimensional, and yellow (demonstrated in one of the First TreeHouses of Horror)
These same kinds of objective facts exist about Middle-earth.
There is subjectivity in the portrayal of these facts (Johhny Depp could have been cast as Aragorn instead of Viggo Mortsenson, and there would be no change to the general objective facts about Aragorn, only that a different actor held enough of the qualities to depict those objective facts - the Subjectvity has a metric, making it not really truly subjective).
If we had cast Danny DeVito as Aragorn, there would be absolutely no means of squaring Danny DeVito's appearance and mannerisms with the objective description of Aragorn as given to us by Tolkien (God Damn! I hate Post-Modernism. It is a blight upon the world that is destructive and ultimately evil)
I get what you're saying here. I actually do. Honest! And you know something? You are right. But you are also wrong.
Firstly, in a written medium, there is the issue that you may not understand what an author is conveying. Language is a bit like chinese whispers. You cannot guarantee that an author had the exact same understanding of a definition of a word as you do. Even by asking him, there is always room for error, and misunderstanding. Secondly, you have no idea how the author truly pictured the world beyond his written works. If Tolkien had been planning, 'Lord of the Rings Two' where Aragorn was revealed to have been a woman all along, you would be unaware of this. Authors pull off worse plot twists than that all the time.
Essentially, what I am conveying here is that whilst yes, there is a set of harder 'facts' to rely upon with less obvious room for interpretation, they cannot be completely objective. And the modification of those 'harder facts' is often necessary in the translation between mediums. This does not 'damage' the original work.
Yes, they hVe been denied something.
The information no longer exists in that adaptation, and NONE of the people seeing it will EVER be able to recover the information from that source no matter how motivated they might be.
They will have to seek out another source, which is NOT Peter Jackson's movie in order to have access to that information.
I think you need to define your understanding of the word 'denied' here.
I have already made it amply clear the distinction here between the films and the originals with more examples than I can count., as well as the definition of the destruction of information.
At this a point, it seems as if people are either intentionally trying to avoid understanding the point, or simply incapable of understanding the point (which is not a crime to have a topic be beyond your understanding if a legitimate attempt at understanding was made. I am not ever likely to fully understand GraphTheory very well, or Manifold Topology).
Alternatively, your communication skills are poor. Communication is a two way street.
Or your point could be being understood and responded to, and you could be incapable of understanding the response? Which as you said, is not a crime. There's no shame in having it 'be beyond your understanding', right? There's more than one option here.
I guess that's something productive we could do in this thread (or in another thread)- point out alternatives to GW's LOTR.
We're in the Golden Age of multipart plastic historicals, which are the best things to work from to create Middle Earth analogues. Gripping Beast Arabs would work okay as Haradrim, for example. I think Conquest Normans with a bit of work make okay Gondorians (better than the movie ones in my view, who were a bit bland and had armour I didn't really expect).
Saxons + cavalry conversions do a decent job of Rohan, and there's many options available.
The big gaps for me are "true scale" dwarves and elves. Tre Manor's Aelfar and Dvergr ranges are perfect and scale well, but they are expensive metals rather than nicely priced plastics. Not that much more expensive than current GW prices, mind.
Equally, Trolls, Orcs and Wargs are hard to source, but Fenrisian wolves can sub as Wargs easily, and there are many possibilities for Trolls, albiet many of them are cartoony and silly looking. Orcs are a bigger problem, but in some cases can be represented by a paintjob or minor conversion on historicals.
Da Boss wrote: I guess that's something productive we could do in this thread (or in another thread)- point out alternatives to GW's LOTR.
Alright, I can take a not-so-subtle hint.
We're in the Golden Age of multipart plastic historicals, which are the best things to work from to create Middle Earth analogues. Gripping Beast Arabs would work okay as Haradrim, for example. I think Conquest Normans with a bit of work make okay Gondorians (better than the movie ones in my view, who were a bit bland and had armour I didn't really expect).
Saxons + cavalry conversions do a decent job of Rohan, and there's many options available.
The big gaps for me are "true scale" dwarves and elves. Tre Manor's Aelfar and Dvergr ranges are perfect and scale well, but they are expensive metals rather than nicely priced plastics. Not that much more expensive than current GW prices, mind.
Equally, Trolls, Orcs and Wargs are hard to source, but Fenrisian wolves can sub as Wargs easily, and there are many possibilities for Trolls, albiet many of them are cartoony and silly looking. Orcs are a bigger problem, but in some cases can be represented by a paintjob or minor conversion on historicals.
There's this chap as a troll available from several online stores, although I'm not sure who the original sculptor was.
That's the thing i've found, GWlotR has a certain scale/realism about them that i find hard to find in other minis. Obvious exception are the Perry models (surprise surprise!) which i absolutely love!
Lots of other cool minis out there though, and as you said, for a fraction of the price. Tempted to start some Harad Arabs now...
If it's all right, I'm going to skip the Tolkien Vs Jackson debate for a moment and go on to comment on the GW license issue that the OP mentioned. I'm not sure that the end is quite as imminent as some think, but it does look like in a few years there will be no more LoTR and from a gaming standpoint I just don't think the loss of the license matters that much.
LoTR was originally a well written, rather affordable game with good minis and a potentially wide player base. The rules and minis are still pretty good, but GW has repeatedly decimated the player base with minis that now cost twice what they did when introduced, and lackluster support, including letting the rules for a large portion of the range go out of print while the miniatures are still in production. LoTR minis are now priced and treated/supported more like "collectibles" than in such a way as to support a gaming community.
This will of course be a major disappointment to the many fans of Tolkien and/or Jackson's Middle Earth films, but LoTR as a GW gaming presence has already shrunk to the point that it's disappearance will not make much of a stir in the wargaming world.
As to the Tolkien Vs Jackson debate...
I don't really care if Christopher Tolkien doesn't like Peter Jackson and Co and his movies. I really like the LoTR films (and the books) and based on my reading of the books, they are a good (though not perfect) adaptation of the LoTR material for the screen. If someone wants a full-and-accurate accounting of the books on film, it isn't going to happen and it's a good thing too, because it would be sinfully boring. Film and written literature are different mediums and neither should attempt to exactly replicate the other.
On the other hand, I don't care if The Hobbit films are Jackson's labor of love and the only representation I'm likely to see for the next few decades. They are terrible. They are poor filmmaking, a poor adaptation of the subject matter and something has more in common with the indulgent and ridiculous Star Wars episodes 1-3 than anything I hope to be subjected to again.
Regarding Alternate minis for LoTR, that may or may not be more "true" to tolkien's vision, there are many, and not just in plastic historicals, which are of course great. It's also beneficial to look backward. The high-fantasy minis of the past 20-30 years are chock full of realistically proportioned and historical-ish stylings. In many cases these figures are still in production and often at prices far below Games Workshop and many newer producers of fantasy miniatures. Folks interested should look into Ral Partha (Iron Wind Metals in the USA), Grenadier miniatures, Sargent Major Miniatures (Formerly Vendel) Bloody Day Fantasy, and many others.
Da Boss wrote: Actually discussing who could provide what GW is providing or better is an interesting point.
I know you are working on some models, BeAfraid. I can't remember if the plan is for them to be multipart plastic or not?
Who has the skill and manufacturing capability to match GW's LOTR? I think for example Tre Manor has the skill (more than enough) but not the production capacity to make multipart or monopose plastics to the same level of quality.
Out of companies with the capacity, we have Wargames Factory. Their Orcs look okay as far as things go, not wonderful but alright. But they make some consistent choices that I don't really like, sacrificing good posing for multipart construction and having the hands and weapons separate. As a painter/player, not a modeller, LOTR models as they stand are in my "sweet spot" as being easy to assemble, looking good, but also being in durable, chip resistant hard plastic.
I guess the absolute best case scenario would be the Perry Brothers somehow getting the license or deciding to do fantasy generics in the right style. But I don't see that as likely, unfortunately.
Scaling production is just a matter of demand, and there are more than enough companies now existing to provide such services that really any content provider with the motivation could eventually scale production to meet a larger demand,
Having an existing production capacity would not hurt, of course.
And Tre Manor is more than Skilled Enough, but would need to alter some things stylistically, as his work is more based upon a post-Norman English appearance and "faery" than was Tolkien's explicitly pre-Norman work.
Tre is a far better physical sculptor than am I, but I am at least as talented in the digital media (lacking only the proper tools at this point to be able to work more quickly. Digital Sculpting is RAM intensive, as for a typical human, of the level of detail of Tre's work, a minimum of 16GB of Ram is required to get the polygon count high enough - or you can do as I have been doing, and retopologize the work after every part has been formed to reduce the polygon count enough to work with less RAM, but Retopologizing with hard constraints on the topology flow is really time consuming).
Wargame's Factory, I think really flaked on their Orcs. The body of those Orcs is essentially symmetrical (front and back of the torso looks identical, or so close as to be nearly so), they offer too few options in terms of alternate poses and heads/limbs.
They could have, with a slightly larger investment provided a sprue, or set of Sprues with six different bodies, sex different lower torsoes and six different heads and arm sets, to produce 6 to the fifth options of different Orc miniatures.
The Perrys suffer from much of the same as Tre, only more-so. And the same as does Jackson's design choices.
They are too late-period; being almost Renaissance in appearance, when Middle-earth is set in a period where the different peoples would appear more as 400 - 1100AD European (Specifically, 400AD Saxons, Franks, and Goths, and 1100AD Byzantines - sort of... There are no direct allegories or Earth-historical analogues to Middle-earth, but the stylistic and technological aspects would be similar to that period for the most part).
Whereas the Perrys tend to push their Fantasy work more toward the 100-Year's War period (15th century), which is far too late for Middle-earth in Any Age. Even the Shire, which is technically not a part of Middle-earth in the same way the other Kingdoms are (it is an anachronistic interface for the readers. A Modern World set within an Archaic Heathen world, where we have characters with more similar values to connect with than the archaic world's of the Kingdoms we find outside of the Shire). This is not to say that the Perrys lack the skill. Of course they could produce the appropriate motifs of appropriate period design. The question is: Would they?
My own work will be metal, with the figures set so that they can be mounted on any base a player chooses (pegs under their feet, rather than the "slotta" type bases).
And my own work is based upon that of Tom Meier, intended to fill a blank spot in his lines from 1979 and the early 00's. Tom's Fantasy Work has probably been the only sculptor to produce miniatures that are appropriate for how Tolkien described Middle-earth's different people's (Mithril being a photo-finish second place).
Both Tom's work, and that of Mithril point out examples that although How an artist decides to depict Middle-earth (a subjective choice), there are still objective traits to those choices that are appropriate (or more appropriate), and choices that are less appropriate (or just outright wrong).
Even within Jackson's/Weta's design work, which mostly falls on the side of "almost exactly wrong," they did manage a few stylistic choices that fall within the "more appropriate" to "Almost perfect."
The style of the Rohirrim is almost exactly how Tolkien describes them either through explicit choices of discription (In The Letters of JRR Tolkien or via Cultural and Language traits. Ideally, the Rohirrim should have a bit more of a Gothic Influence to them. But mounted Saxons is a best second choice.
Weta's choices for the Hardrim were in the "more appropriate," but they still had many failings in them. But they still stand out as being a better design choice that Any of the Elves or Gondor.
But once the License leaves GW's grubby hands, it will fall into more friendly hands in all likelihood, Especially if, by that time, Saul Zaentz's license has expired, and the Tolkien Estate is freer to pursue people who show more respect to Tolkien's legacy than have Zaentz, Jackson, Weta, New Line, or any of the video game companies.
And... Even if it doesn't... As more people begin to tire of the litany of Sword & Sorcery styled Fntasy miniatures, dripping with filigree and skulls, and more designers begin to explore more basic Fantasy Motifs (and learn more about Middle-earth than is contained in the three main "novels" - four counting the Narn), then we will likely see an explosion of appropriate proxies for Middle-earth that will open up player's choices substantially.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for alternatives.
Fireforge is making Mongols who will work wonderfully as the Mid-3rd Age Wainriders and Balchoth.
And they would be supplementary to later-3rd Age Easterlings (who seemed to be much more Infantry Oriented than the Earlier Easterlings of the 3rd Age).
For the Khand, Early Rus would be exactly what Tolkien described (The "Variags" are the "Vikings' to the Byzantines, who were mostly "Rus," and the word itself derives from the Rus/Viking word, with even earlier Sanskirt roots).
For the Rohirrim, and the Earlier Foradan of Rhovanion (The Northmen, Allied to Gondor, who were overrun by the Wainriders in the 19th Century 3rd Age), one would do better to look toward Goths than Mounted Saxons.
To begin with, the Goths are basically (Culturally) the Saxons who went slightly eastward, on Horseback, before turning back West. Their languages are nearly identical. And in appearance you are going to find a good many similarities.
Plus, you are not going to find a very wide variety of Heavy Saxons Mounted, which would be needed for the Core Éoreds of the Rohirrim. Yet there are several 28mm lines of Goths which provide a huge selection of Heavily armored Mounted.
For the Irregular Non-Professional Éoreds among the Rohirrim Éoherë, then East Riding Miniature's Mounted Saxons would made a decent choice (although they do not have a very huge selection, this would only be about 1/10 of the overall army).
Haradrim are a much harder thing to find really decent replacements for.
They are a kind of mix of Beja and Arab. The Haradrim were to Tolkien a representation of the Arab Mahgreb of Northern Africa (the displacement and destruction of the Prior Roman cultures).
And he has several parts to their description that make finding decent proxies difficult: mainly, Spiked Shields.
Moors or Muslim Crusader periods would work fairly well, if one could find spiked shields to use in conversions,
Also, the Haradrim were roughly ⅓ to ½ mounted... I imagine that mounted Crusader period Muslims, again, would work, given that spiked shield issue (Haradrim are #3 on my list of miniatures to produce, after Gondorians that include the fiefs - but it will be more than a year, currently, before I can get around to it). But the Perrys produce more than enough options for proxies for Harad.
I might as well do something with this duplicate post.
And... It may take me several edits (being on my screwed up iPad) to get the entire post finished, but I thought I would point out some miniatures for Middle-earth that GW doesn't make, and are for periods beyond the scope of just the events of the novels proper.
As I mentioned, the Rohirrim are perhaps the one thing that Weta/Jackson got correct, although GW could do us a favor by producing some lighter armored Rohirrim (chainmail and lamellar, as well as just unarmored Éotheod).
But for the Earlier Foradan of Rhvanion, during the Earlier Third Age, Footsore Miniature's Goth's make an excellent miniature for the Norhmen, or for Marwhini's people who fled to the upper Vales of the Anduin after the Invasion of the Wainriders in 1850 - 1900:
And, for Early To Mid-Third Age, or in the Second Age, the "Hill Men" of Eriador, such as those who made up the Rhudaur men who threw down the Dúnadain of that kingdom, prior to becoming vassals of the Witch King, have Footsore Miniature's Irish
And for the Wainriders, or the Balchoth, who were their close relatives, there are the Fireforge Mongols (they have just announced plans for their heavy Mongols, allowing for the completion of an entire Mongol Army, which would just about Stand in for the Balchoth of around the 20th century Third Age:
I'm torn about what I want to happen to LotR miniatures. On the one hand, the Perry brothers have done wonderful models with LotR and I'd love that to continue. On the other hand, GW have basically just given a big "feth you" to LotR/Hobbit fans with how they've treated The Hobbit.
So while I'd like the game to be picked up by someone who will, ya know, actually give a crap about it.... I really love the GWLotR miniatures, they are some of my favourite miniatures *ever* from any manufacturer. They are wonderfully proportioned models (and CONSISTENTLY proportioned which most manufacturers don't manage) that mostly have very good poses which (IMO) more than makes up for the fact they are typically monopose.
As for the whole Peter Jackson interpretation of Tolkien's work vs something that matches closer, meh. I actually wasn't a huge fan of the LotR books to begin with so I can't bring myself to care all that much if they didn't follow it to the letter. I don't hate them, but they didn't capture me, I got through the first 2 and only about half the way through the last one.
PJ created a wonderful aesthetic and GW did a great job turning it in to miniatures. I prefer that they created their own unique aesthetic instead of following something that would have just closely matched historical miniatures.
@BeAfraid... you seem confused as to why people were so defensive. I'd say (at least initially) people were no more defensive with their posts than you were offensive with yours. Since then I'd say people have been LESS defensive with their posts than you have been offensive with yours. You don't paint a good picture of academics.
Well I enjoyed this topic a bit more than I thought I might. I might disagree with some of BeAfraid's points and his tone*, but I essentially agree with his general arguments...
- I was a fan of The Hobbit since forever, and only started reading LotR when I heard there was a movie series coming out. When I finally sat there in the cinema I couldn't understand why they had changed so much of the tone and reasons for points of the plot and storyline. Sure there were some nice pictures, as mentioned, but to me it was 'Peter Jackson's film inspired by LotR' right off the bat.
(I do tend to do that 'I-read-the-book-first-and-don't-like-the-movie' thing, though, so when GoT appeared I watched the first season before going near the books. Know what? I still prefer the books, and the 'boring, real-world' description of clothing and armour. On that note, there's another fantasy author who wasn't fond of some of the things people wanted to do with his books.)
- As above, I'm especially sceptical about the old chestnut that 'you need to change things in an adaptation!', 'cos I've never heard any really good reasons for it, if people bother to give reasons at all. I have heard people say that the songs, Tom Bombadil, etc. needed to be cut out, and sometimes heard that it's to keep the movie short. Fair enough, I can agree with the need to edit or truncate things. (though I still feel there's a bit of room for Bombadil. I like that he rubs people up the wrong way, mostly because he's hard to fit in people's D&D style classification system of M-E's cosmogony. Which is almost part of the point.) But I don't think that's quite the same as changing things, even beyond the shape of swords, particularly character and motivation. To wit:
What were the circumstances and reasons for Merry and Pippin joining Frodo and Sam on their journey across the Shire, and beyond?
What was Elrond's attitude to his daughter's betrothal to Aragorn?
When and why did Treebeard decide to attack Isengard?
Where did Faramir intend to take Frodo and Sam at first, and why?
And so on...
Most changes in the movies seemed to come about from Jackson's inability to understand subtlety and to inject cheap drama. Especially apparent after seeing some of his other films. (half-hour brontosaur stampedes, trapeze-swinging tyrannosaurs, and ice-skating giant apes spring to mind) Who said earlier about a cheap B-movie maker, or words to that effect? That's right. Without already-popular classic stories to lean on, his level is somewhere about Braindead or The Frighteners.
- People say that these are the movies that everyone will remember, with iconic imagery. Perhaps. Again, the movies are pretty, but I'm gonna say I struggle to see much that's iconic about them. (That wasn't already in the books, or illustrations by Tolkien and others) Same thing about GW's minis. Also, I agree that remakes with all the unnecessary changes ironed out could become the new standard. As mentioned, the New Line LotR was not the first adaptation. (or inspiration) Christopher wasn't the first Reeves, to represent Superman on-screen. Andrew Garfield took over from Tobey Maguire, who took over from Nicholas Hammond. On that note, who remembers the Captain America film before Chris Evans? And don't forget, there were three movies featuring said ice-skating giant ape, and the biggest to date still isn't the most iconic. (twenty-nine years between the last two - we're about halfway there for the LotR remake, right?)
A lot of comic movies mentioned there. I read a thing about comics recently: before the days of continuity-obsessed nerds, stories were seen as available to be recycled every 5-7 years because readers would move on and the rehash wouldn't ruffle too many feathers. (sounds a bit like GW's faulty thought process, too) The lead-time's a bit longer for movies, but I wonder if - like the cases of these recycled comics, movie remakes, and the BSG example - the people who would oppose an LotR remake in the future would be the handful of 'grumpy obsessives' that book fans are being painted as now, and most folk would be up for a different (better?) take?
*Though people gotta grow a skin and learn the difference between frank advice and personal insult. One of the old chestnuts I learned from forays in the art/sculpting sphere, but a true one.
- - -
On the topic of minis, I agree that most of the human races can be represented by historical minis. I've been eyeing up Footsore's mounted goths myself. As for no great examples of elves, dwarfs and orcs: tell me about it! Sometimes I wonder if old Grenadier or Ral Partha elves might be suitable. I also wonder if the decline of GW's LotR and even GW as a whole might spark off some replacements. I've thought about doing a few myself (covered in bland ol' dark age mail), though perhaps in 15mm. I think BeAfraid's orcs have scared me off the 28mm idea.
I would like to see a quote that is legitimately offensive to anyone here.
A direct quote, in context, of mine that shows some sort of actual offense.
I can already guess that you will look for something where I pointed to people's lack of awareness of specifics of Tolkien, but in an academic setting, that isn't considered offensive to point out a lack in knowledge of a subject to someone who demonstrates that lack, repeatedly,
The subject may not like it, but that is kind of the whole point of the academic life, to remove ignorance from the world.
And when someone repeatedly makes a claim to knowledge they demonstrably do not possess, it is even worse to not point that out if the points in question hinge upon that very knowledge.
My points have been:
• Someone else could do a better job.
• Peter Jackson's designs are NOT Tokien, and thus really aren't LotR (which was written by Tolken, and not Peter Jackson)
• Many of my critics, as I highlighted in their posts, have just come right out and said that they don't like Tolkien's work, it isn't fit for other media (which is an entirely subjective opinion). So why do they then carry on pretending that Jackson's work IS Tolkien, an identity that they themselves just denied.
• Tolkien's different people's are NOT simply historical analogs. Tolkien stated this time-and-time-again, and he even described the various distinctions between then different people's armies (you have to go beyond just the Novels to discover this... But what did I say about just because people are unaware of it doesn't mean that it does not exist). And thus it is possible to develop highly attractive and distinctive models for the different factions that are not at odds with Tolkien's descriptions.
Vermis wrote: Well I enjoyed this topic a bit more than I thought I might. I might disagree with some of BeAfraid's points and his tone*, but I essentially agree with his general arguments...
- I was a fan of The Hobbit since forever, and only started reading LotR when I heard there was a movie series coming out. When I finally sat there in the cinema I couldn't understand why they had changed so much of the tone and reasons for points of the plot and storyline. Sure there were some nice pictures, as mentioned, but to me it was 'Peter Jackson's film inspired by LotR' right off the bat.
(I do tend to do that 'I-read-the-book-first-and-don't-like-the-movie' thing, though, so when GoT appeared I watched the first season before going near the books. Know what? I still prefer the books, and the 'boring, real-world' description of clothing and armour. On that note, there's another fantasy author who wasn't fond of some of the things people wanted to do with his books.)
- As above, I'm especially sceptical about the old chestnut that 'you need to change things in an adaptation!', 'cos I've never heard any really good reasons for it, if people bother to give reasons at all. I have heard people say that the songs, Tom Bombadil, etc. needed to be cut out, and sometimes heard that it's to keep the movie short. Fair enough, I can agree with the need to edit or truncate things. (though I still feel there's a bit of room for Bombadil. I like that he rubs people up the wrong way, mostly because he's hard to fit in people's D&D style classification system of M-E's cosmogony. Which is almost part of the point.) But I don't think that's quite the same as changing things, even beyond the shape of swords, particularly character and motivation. To wit:
What were the circumstances and reasons for Merry and Pippin joining Frodo and Sam on their journey across the Shire, and beyond?
What was Elrond's attitude to his daughter's betrothal to Aragorn?
When and why did Treebeard decide to attack Isengard?
Where did Faramir intend to take Frodo and Sam at first, and why?
And so on...
Most changes in the movies seemed to come about from Jackson's inability to understand subtlety and to inject cheap drama. Especially apparent after seeing some of his other films. (half-hour brontosaur stampedes, trapeze-swinging tyrannosaurs, and ice-skating giant apes spring to mind) Who said earlier about a cheap B-movie maker, or words to that effect? That's right. Without already-popular classic stories to lean on, his level is somewhere about Braindead or The Frighteners.
- People say that these are the movies that everyone will remember, with iconic imagery. Perhaps. Again, the movies are pretty, but I'm gonna say I struggle to see much that's iconic about them. (That wasn't already in the books, or illustrations by Tolkien and others) Same thing about GW's minis. Also, I agree that remakes with all the unnecessary changes ironed out could become the new standard. As mentioned, the New Line LotR was not the first adaptation. (or inspiration) Christopher wasn't the first Reeves, to represent Superman on-screen. Andrew Garfield took over from Tobey Maguire, who took over from Nicholas Hammond. On that note, who remembers the Captain America film before Chris Evans? And don't forget, there were three movies featuring said ice-skating giant ape, and the biggest to date still isn't the most iconic. (twenty-nine years between the last two - we're about halfway there for the LotR remake, right?)
A lot of comic movies mentioned there. I read a thing about comics recently: before the days of continuity-obsessed nerds, stories were seen as available to be recycled every 5-7 years because readers would move on and the rehash wouldn't ruffle too many feathers. (sounds a bit like GW's faulty thought process, too) The lead-time's a bit longer for movies, but I wonder if - like the cases of these recycled comics, movie remakes, and the BSG example - the people who would oppose an LotR remake in the future would be the handful of 'grumpy obsessives' that book fans are being painted as now, and most folk would be up for a different (better?) take?
*Though people gotta grow a skin and learn the difference between frank advice and personal insult. One of the old chestnuts I learned from forays in the art/sculpting sphere, but a true one.
- - -
On the topic of minis, I agree that most of the human races can be represented by historical minis. I've been eyeing up Footsore's mounted goths myself. As for no great examples of elves, dwarfs and orcs: tell me about it! Sometimes I wonder if old Grenadier or Ral Partha elves might be suitable. I also wonder if the decline of GW's LotR and even GW as a whole might spark off some replacements. I've thought about doing a few myself (covered in bland ol' dark age mail), though perhaps in 15mm. I think BeAfraid's orcs have scared me off the 28mm idea.
What's wrong with my Orcs? Seriously???
They are simply hybrids between the older Tom Meier Miniatures and the newer (and I have yet to complete but one of them).
I know there are some confusion involving their weapons (they are to be cast open-handed, and weapons to be added from a selection) - some people were not aware of this, and commented on what looked to be clumsy positioning of the weapons.
And, as I pointed out, only one of them had the surface anatomy done yet, and none have their faces finished (due to needing to retopologize so often with my limited RAM).
On the Ral Partha side, I have mentioned to them that I would be willing to have my old work scan their elves to re-scale them as 28mm - 30mm figures to match Tom Meier's newer stuff (the older Meier Partha stuff in their new Kickstarter is very small compared to Tom Meier's newer stuff, or to even GW's stuff).
The subject may not like it, but that is kind of the whole point of the academic life, to remove ignorance from the world.
Is it? Blimey, I'd better go remind the rest of the department.
I remember when I was doing my MA, and got asked in a seminar group why we might want to be academics. I proudly announced that I liked the idea of contributing the pool of human knowledge. The Professor leading the group looked at me, laughed and said, 'Well I don't know if I've ever done that. Pissed in it perhaps, but there you go'.
Vermis wrote: Well I enjoyed this topic a bit more than I thought I might. I might disagree with some of BeAfraid's points and his tone*, but I essentially agree with his general arguments...
- I was a fan of The Hobbit since forever, and only started reading LotR when I heard there was a movie series coming out. When I finally sat there in the cinema I couldn't understand why they had changed so much of the tone and reasons for points of the plot and storyline. Sure there were some nice pictures, as mentioned, but to me it was 'Peter Jackson's film inspired by LotR' right off the bat.
(I do tend to do that 'I-read-the-book-first-and-don't-like-the-movie' thing, though, so when GoT appeared I watched the first season before going near the books. Know what? I still prefer the books, and the 'boring, real-world' description of clothing and armour. On that note, there's another fantasy author who wasn't fond of some of the things people wanted to do with his books.)
- As above, I'm especially sceptical about the old chestnut that 'you need to change things in an adaptation!', 'cos I've never heard any really good reasons for it, if people bother to give reasons at all. I have heard people say that the songs, Tom Bombadil, etc. needed to be cut out, and sometimes heard that it's to keep the movie short. Fair enough, I can agree with the need to edit or truncate things. (though I still feel there's a bit of room for Bombadil. I like that he rubs people up the wrong way, mostly because he's hard to fit in people's D&D style classification system of M-E's cosmogony. Which is almost part of the point.) But I don't think that's quite the same as changing things, even beyond the shape of swords, particularly character and motivation. To wit:
What were the circumstances and reasons for Merry and Pippin joining Frodo and Sam on their journey across the Shire, and beyond?
What was Elrond's attitude to his daughter's betrothal to Aragorn?
When and why did Treebeard decide to attack Isengard?
Where did Faramir intend to take Frodo and Sam at first, and why?
And so on...
Most changes in the movies seemed to come about from Jackson's inability to understand subtlety and to inject cheap drama. Especially apparent after seeing some of his other films. (half-hour brontosaur stampedes, trapeze-swinging tyrannosaurs, and ice-skating giant apes spring to mind) Who said earlier about a cheap B-movie maker, or words to that effect? That's right. Without already-popular classic stories to lean on, his level is somewhere about Braindead or The Frighteners.
- People say that these are the movies that everyone will remember, with iconic imagery. Perhaps. Again, the movies are pretty, but I'm gonna say I struggle to see much that's iconic about them. (That wasn't already in the books, or illustrations by Tolkien and others) Same thing about GW's minis. Also, I agree that remakes with all the unnecessary changes ironed out could become the new standard. As mentioned, the New Line LotR was not the first adaptation. (or inspiration) Christopher wasn't the first Reeves, to represent Superman on-screen. Andrew Garfield took over from Tobey Maguire, who took over from Nicholas Hammond. On that note, who remembers the Captain America film before Chris Evans? And don't forget, there were three movies featuring said ice-skating giant ape, and the biggest to date still isn't the most iconic. (twenty-nine years between the last two - we're about halfway there for the LotR remake, right?)
A lot of comic movies mentioned there. I read a thing about comics recently: before the days of continuity-obsessed nerds, stories were seen as available to be recycled every 5-7 years because readers would move on and the rehash wouldn't ruffle too many feathers. (sounds a bit like GW's faulty thought process, too) The lead-time's a bit longer for movies, but I wonder if - like the cases of these recycled comics, movie remakes, and the BSG example - the people who would oppose an LotR remake in the future would be the handful of 'grumpy obsessives' that book fans are being painted as now, and most folk would be up for a different (better?) take?
*Though people gotta grow a skin and learn the difference between frank advice and personal insult. One of the old chestnuts I learned from forays in the art/sculpting sphere, but a true one.
- - -
On the topic of minis, I agree that most of the human races can be represented by historical minis. I've been eyeing up Footsore's mounted goths myself. As for no great examples of elves, dwarfs and orcs: tell me about it! Sometimes I wonder if old Grenadier or Ral Partha elves might be suitable. I also wonder if the decline of GW's LotR and even GW as a whole might spark off some replacements. I've thought about doing a few myself (covered in bland ol' dark age mail), though perhaps in 15mm. I think BeAfraid's orcs have scared me off the 28mm idea.
They are simply hybrids between the older Tom Meier Miniatures and the newer (and I have yet to complete but one of them).
Spoiler:
I know there are some confusion involving their weapons (they are to be cast open-handed, and weapons to be added from a selection) - some people were not aware of this, and commented on what looked to be clumsy positioning of the weapons.
And, as I pointed out, only one of them had the surface anatomy done yet, and none have their faces finished (due to needing to retopologize so often with my limited RAM).
On the Ral Partha side, I have mentioned to them that I would be willing to have my old work scan their elves to re-scale them as 28mm - 30mm figures to match Tom Meier's newer stuff (the older Meier Partha stuff in their new Kickstarter is very small compared to Tom Meier's newer stuff, or to even GW's stuff).
MB
For an academic, you sure could work on your citation skills. No need to quote an entire page of text when you're only responding to the very last sentence. Or should we look past that and just be thankful that we have you around to "remove ignorance from the world"?
Vermis wrote: - As above, I'm especially sceptical about the old chestnut that 'you need to change things in an adaptation!', 'cos I've never heard any really good reasons for it, if people bother to give reasons at all. I have heard people say that the songs, Tom Bombadil, etc. needed to be cut out, and sometimes heard that it's to keep the movie short. Fair enough, I can agree with the need to edit or truncate things. (though I still feel there's a bit of room for Bombadil. I like that he rubs people up the wrong way, mostly because he's hard to fit in people's D&D style classification system of M-E's cosmogony. Which is almost part of the point.) But I don't think that's quite the same as changing things, even beyond the shape of swords, particularly character and motivation. To wit:
What were the circumstances and reasons for Merry and Pippin joining Frodo and Sam on their journey across the Shire, and beyond? What was Elrond's attitude to his daughter's betrothal to Aragorn? When and why did Treebeard decide to attack Isengard? Where did Faramir intend to take Frodo and Sam at first, and why? And so on...
Most changes in the movies seemed to come about from Jackson's inability to understand subtlety and to inject cheap drama. Especially apparent after seeing some of his other films. (half-hour brontosaur stampedes, trapeze-swinging tyrannosaurs, and ice-skating giant apes spring to mind) Who said earlier about a cheap B-movie maker, or words to that effect? That's right. Without already-popular classic stories to lean on, his level is somewhere about Braindead or The Frighteners.
I appreciate those gripes, when you alter the motivations of characters from one adaptation to the next it bothers me more than aesthetic variations. But when it comes to the miniatures, we are really only discussing the aesthetics/rules/etc.
It's like comparing a modern retelling of Shakespeare that may have a different aesthetic, but the overall story and character motivations/actions/reactions remain intact to one that may be set in the correct period but butchers the source material to be a completely different story. The latter is more reprehensible to me... but not really applicable when discussing a miniature wargame (at least I don't feel).
BeAfraid wrote: I would like to see a quote that is legitimately offensive to anyone here.
A direct quote, in context, of mine that shows some sort of actual offense.
I will say when I said "people were no more defensive with their posts than you were offensive with yours." I was using the word "offensive" purely as an antonym for "defensive", that means "to attack", not in the connotation of meaning you were personally offending people. My apologies if that was not clear, I thought it was implied by the way I used it.
The things you claim as people being defensive could no more defending than what you said is attacking.
I can already guess that you will look for something where I pointed to people's lack of awareness of specifics of Tolkien, but in an academic setting, that isn't considered offensive to point out a lack in knowledge of a subject to someone who demonstrates that lack, repeatedly,
No, not at all. Pointing out factual information isn't*** what makes people defensive. It's the stuff in between the facts. You said things like...
"GW losing the license to Middle-earth would be the best thing to ever happen to it. "
That's opinion, not factual awareness of Tolkien that you have and other people lack.
"Middle-earth would be better served with a line of miniatures that better fits the aesthetic described and depicted by Tolkien. "
Again, opinion.
"Talk about completely missing the point (not that I am surprised, as most people outside of academia or the film industry itself don't understand the point). "
That is an attacking sentence. I'm surprised that, as an academic, you don't realise that. You aren't expounding some academic knowledge that people are lacking in this sentence, you are just attacking people for what you perceive as a lack of knowledge.
Mysterious Pants brought up a couple as well...
"...not that I am surprised, as most people outside of academia or the film industry itself don't understand the point.
But.... I am likely wasting my time here, as I don't think people are understanding this distinction based upon the replies."
It's really not hard at all to see why people might have gotten a little bit defensive (or at least you perceived them to be defensive, I personally don't think anyone has gotten all that defensive).
***I will admit there are some dark corners of the internet where simply pointing out the facts is enough to get people attacking you. It's why I don't leave comments on youtube videos any more But Dakka isn't really one of those places. If someone is being defensive, there's usually a good logical explanation for it.
I guess hypothetically someone could. Personally I think GW have done a pretty good job (at least up until the Hobbit) and question whether someone *will* do a better job (not *could* they).
• Peter Jackson's designs are NOT Tokien, and thus really aren't LotR (which was written by Tolken, and not Peter Jackson) • Many of my critics, as I highlighted in their posts, have just come right out and said that they don't like Tolkien's work, it isn't fit for other media (which is an entirely subjective opinion). So why do they then carry on pretending that Jackson's work IS Tolkien, an identity that they themselves just denied.
I don't think anyone in this thread is pretending that Jackson's work is Tolkien (maybe I missed it). Though to say it's not LotR is another thing. What is and isn't LotR is more personal opinion than cold hard fact. For better or for worse, PJ's movies bear the title LotR, you can ignore them if you want, but you can't impose that feeling on everyone else.
I would rather want to know what is wrong with my orcs at this point.
:(
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also.
If it is not Tolkien's work, then it cannot be LotR.
Tolkien's work includes The Lord of the Rings.
Therefore, if you label something "Not Tolkien's work."
Then you are saying:
It is not The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, Narn í Hîn Hurin, . . . . . - continued list of Tolkien's works
Peter Jackson is not the author of any of Tolkien's works.
He made some movies which share the same names, but which simply share some characteristics with Tolkien's works.
Thus why I use metaphors such as Modanna and Justin Beiber for the Rindannini Pietá, Lady Gaga as the Mona Lisa, or four guys in robes handing out Pizza and Beer in an auditorium as a Catholic Mass.
All of these things share in superficial qualities with the original works.
Modanna and Beiber might be in the same pose, trapped in marble, as Michelangelo's Rondannini Pietá.
Lady Gaga could be wearing a similar wig to the Mona Lisa, in front of a medieval city, similar to DaVinci's Mona Lisa.
And the four guys in an Autitorium could be mimicking a Catholic Mass, right down to the words of the priests and respondents of a Mass and Communion.
But these things would not BEMichelangelo's Romdannini Pietá, DaVnci's Mona Lisa, or the Catholic Mass and Communion.
Do people know what an identity is?
It is when X=Y, therefore Y IS X.
But you can have equivalences that are variances. They only sort-of equate to another value (like 22/7 for π).
And some things are even more distantly equated.
Such as. Four people in a room is much more like one person in a room than it is like 100 people in a room.
Or like a photograph of Kim Kardashian is like the Mona Lisa more than it is like a photograph of a Chimpanzee (even wearing the same thing as Kim Kardashan).
These are objective metrics, even if these is some subjectivity as to the equivalence.
A continuum is still objective, even if it is difficult to pinpoint where the "black" becomes "white" (and vise versa).
MB P.S. Still more interested in what is wrong with my Orcs, though.
Lol. Nothing much. That's the problem. They would make any 28mm efforts on my part a bit redundant, and they'd be a hard act to follow.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I appreciate those gripes, when you alter the motivations of characters from one adaptation to the next it bothers me more than aesthetic variations. But when it comes to the miniatures, we are really only discussing the aesthetics/rules/etc.
It's like comparing a modern retelling of Shakespeare that may have a different aesthetic, but the overall story and character motivations/actions/reactions remain intact to one that may be set in the correct period but butchers the source material to be a completely different story. The latter is more reprehensible to me... but not really applicable when discussing a miniature wargame (at least I don't feel).
Aye... I suppose. I only really knew about the dark age influence to LotR when I dug deeper into other writings... but that's the problem. When you know that something in a work of fiction has a defined look, that's kinda the look you'd like to see expressed in the biggest, flashiest, mass-media version. It's like introducing balance to GW rules - it's not going to make much difference to, let alone hurt or trouble anyone who doesn't know or care about it, but it'll appeal to a wider audience that includes people who are looking for that, who might appreciate the wee bit of effort.
Actually, effort? Might be less effort than having the design studio coming up with something new and different to what the original author laid down.
I don't think it's quite the same as setting, say, Titus Andronicus in a weird 20thC Roman Empire, or Romeo and Juliet in an American mafia war. Despite any of PJ's disclaimers of 'inspired by', or whatever, the films are not making any obvious or explicit claim to be a wild new look or interpretation of LotR: the same story (almost) but in a different time and place. As was mentioned, this will be most viewers' first, or only, experience of Middle Earth. With that, regardless of however much shock or outrage the assertion has caused or will cause, it could've been a bit better...
Again, it's like Game of Thrones. Aaall that non-historical clothing and armour than HBO had to churn out, and from what I hear George Martin wasn't happy at all with what they did. In LotR and GoT, things look nice. They make nice minis. But would it have hurt too much to have great designers and effects artists, and then sculptors and mouldmakers, make representations of the original descriptions?
I guess the problem there is that more generic, almost-historical armour is a bit harder to copyright, or trademark, or whatever, when you're marketing merchandise, including tiny plastic versions of it, to the public. GW's recent legal woes and their apparent reactions ("blow up the world!") are an illustration of that. But, y'know, I can't care too much. I'm not GW. I'm the end user, not the manufacturer. I'm one of those who want to use generic, historical minis to at least represent M-E races of Man. If the LotR movies had gone with a look more in keeping with Tolkien's descriptions, I doubt I'd be in the minority.
Heck, over at the Lead Adventure Forum, lots of guys are digging into the Perry historical medieval sets (HYW and WotR[oses]) to kitbash GoT minis and forces. Or should I say AsoIaF minis and forces. There are no minis of the TV series, but they aren't letting that, or the specific look of the series, stop them. I'd be into it to the elbows meself, but I'm just waiting for the Perrys to bring out the HYW French, which have more of the tabards and things I'd like for Starks and other northmen.
Lol. Nothing much. That's the problem. They would make any 28mm efforts on my part a bit redundant, and they'd be a hard act to follow.
Oh!
I thought you were saying they sucked in some fashion.
But I understand what you mean about redundancies.
I do not plan on doing anything for which there already exists acceptable alternatives (save for Rohirrim, which I will do to Complement both the Perry's LotR Rohirrim, and the one figure done by Tom Meier).
I plan to do figures that will allow the existing GW stuff to be used as "Late Rohirrim" (from roughly 2750 - 20 4th Age), and the stuff I do will be earlier period Rohirrim, plus to add to the bredth of what is available for the Late Rohirrim (we need more lighter Armored troops, and troops without bows, even strapped to their backs). Come to think of it, four more mounted Archers would also be good for the later period. Two more basic Rohirrim, and two more for the Outriders... And maybe some very lightly armored archers and lancers for scouts.
But those are the only figures I plan to do that atrongly overlap existing lines that appear as described, or which can have the appearance inferred or deduced via existing references (such as language and physical attributes).
What is a shame is that Petr Jackson's Gondorians would be excellent if he had just done away with the plate, and had them in chainmail, maybe with a tabard over it, and a surcoat with the coat of arms (each city is supposed to have their own "Caras Maedhyrm" - City Warriors/Milites, which have their own device). If I could duplicate the shields, taking the Perry's Crusaders and putting the Warriors of Minas Torith heads on them would probably produce a very appropriate figure.
But I want to get away from Jackson's design preferences, and go with something that hints a little more at the Byzantines of the Latin Conquest period (Trezibonds, and such), with just a hint of Anglo-Saxon thrown in to keep it from looking too Oriental (for instance, the Byzantines of that period had largely switched to scimitars, or curved swords, which would not do at all for ANY of the Good Guys).
And I want a bit more variation of Helmets/heads for different periods. The Gondorians I plan to start with would not be the Warof he Rings Period Gondorians, but those of the Post-Kin Strife Era, during the War with the Wainriders.
Ultimately, my plan is to get other decent sculptors to contribute to the effort, such as Tom Meier, by showing them that having a more complete line of figures available for each force is better than having a few assorted figures from a few nationalities.
People are less likely to buy figures for an army that do not mix well with other manufacturers, if a manufacturer has an incomplete line.
And Tom Meier's figures are so distinctive that they stand out like a sore thumb (of great beauty) against other figures used with them.
If I can just get the Orcs released (I had an email from someone at Iron Wind Metals as possibly adding them to their Chaos Wars lines, to supplement the Tom Meier Goblins of old), then I will have enough money to buy a newer Mac with more RAM (and hopefully ZBrush) so that I can work more quickly. This has been my biggest hold-up, is having to re-topologize after every detail pass I do on a miniature to put hard constraints on the mesh flow, so that I can get better detail with a lower polygon count (I max out at about 1.5million polygons, and all of the digital sculptors I have spoken to about miniatures say that I need three to four times that: 4Million - 6Million).
And that will speed the creation of others, and hopefully be able to spur Tom Meier to add to his existing lines (maybe produce some Mordor Orcs, or Uruk-Hai/Man-Orcs), and to COMPLETE THEM (add command groupS - plural, more than one command figure for each army - and a few lighter or support troops). For instance, his current "Great Goblins" need to have unarmored warriors, and armored archers to actually complete the line... And maybe Lesser Orcs - but that is what I have produced for that line.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh!
For 15mm Middle-earth miniatures...
Khurasan Miniatures have their Great Enemy line, which is basically First Age Middle-earth.
I am pretty sure that the owner has commissioned Tom Meier to produce the Elves for that line (or at least some of them).
The line currently only has Orcs and a few other "Bad Guys."
But I am pretty sure that he plans to add to it.
And the Orcs and Goblins he does have for it are beautiful (I don't like the Great Orcs personally, due to some preferences, but I can recognize that they are beautiful, just like I don't care for Boticelli's Venus, but can tell it is a work of remarkable beauty).
This is further evidence that even though depictions might be subjective, there are objective standards to what is and is not appropriate for those depictions,
Lol. Nothing much. That's the problem. They would make any 28mm efforts on my part a bit redundant, and they'd be a hard act to follow.
I guess the problem there is that more generic, almost-historical armour is a bit harder to copyright, or trademark, or whatever, when you're marketing merchandise, including tiny plastic versions of it, to the public. GW's recent legal woes and their apparent reactions ("blow up the world!") are an illustration of that. But, y'know, I can't care too much. I'm not GW. I'm the end user, not the manufacturer. I'm one of those who want to use generic, historical minis to at least represent M-E races of Man. If the LotR movies had gone with a look more in keeping with Tolkien's descriptions, I doubt I'd be in the minority.
This is and has been another of my points.
Given the rabid fan-boy reactions to Tolkien, we are now seeing post-Hoc Rationalizations by these fans to PJ's movies.
These fans would probably been even more fanatic and happy over the more accurate Dark Ages, yet slightly more generic (although still distinctive, as we see with the Rohirrim, who are appropriately and more accurately styled) designs than they seemingly are with the less accurate, over-the-top divergences from Tolkien's work.
The Cognitive Sciences have shown that people who have a significant investment in an incorrect belief will tend to become even more fanatic about those wrong beliefs the more evidence is shown that those beliefs are wrong (see/Google: The Backfire Effect)
The Backfire Effect, along with a Sunk Cost Fallacy, and simple post-Hoc rationalizations of the significant investments people have made in the GW minis causes them to reject Tolkien's explicit word over Jackson's colorful/fanciful redaction of Tolkien's Middle-earth.
They create a narrative that they "actually prefer Jackson's designs" over any possible other designs (even those they have not seen) simply because they would cause cognitive dissonance in prior behavior (sort of similar to people defending and rationalizing poor behavior, even when they know the behavior to be detrimental).
And if Jackson had stuck more closely to Tolkien's narrative, these people would defend it just as vociferously, and those like myself would be considerably less upset by the alterations than otherwise.
Comparing the Jackson attempts at Tolkien's novels to the productions of Totus Andronicus or Romeo and Juliet set in modern, or anachronistic settings is NOTHING LIKE what Peter Jackson did to Tolkien's work.
Jackson's attempts were produced under the assumption that he would be trying to get as close to Tolkien as possible (he failed, which is not a subjective statement by the metrics I am using, or have stated, as they deal with concrete, specific aberrations from explicit statements about Middle-earth by Tolkien). My typical analogies of Michelangelo, DaVinci, and the Catholic Mass can be referenced here.
People can rationalize calling four guys in black robes handing out pizza and beer in an auditorium a re-intactment of Communion at a Catholic Mass, but they will simply be rationalizations. It requires specifics, essential qualities, most notably a Catholic Priest, and a consecrated Catholic Church or Santuary in order to hold mass (Communion is looser, as it may be delivered outside of consecrated ground).
Appositely, there are essentials to Tolkien's work, without which, it really isn't Tolkien's work. It is something like Tolkien's work, yet is not Tolkien's work.
And the defenders of Jackson have no evidence that a more accurate portrayal of The Lord of the Rings or, especially, The Hobbit would not do as well, because that is currently an unknown set. It is impossible to know with any certainty how well any given set will compare to an unknown.
Heck, over at the Lead Adventure Forum, lots of guys are digging into the Perry historical medieval sets (HYW and WotR[oses]) to kitbash GoT minis and forces. Or should I say AsoIaF minis and forces. There are no minis of the TV series, but they aren't letting that, or the specific look of the series, stop them. I'd be into it to the elbows meself, but I'm just waiting for the Perrys to bring out the HYW French, which have more of the tabards and things I'd like for Starks and other northmen.
This is another one where I was disappointed. I am not much of a fan of GRRM overall, but he could not have been more overtly explicit about the appearance of his world.
He even had a line of official miniatures done (most of which were sculpted by Tom Meier) by Dark Sword Miniatures.
And they are explicitly 100-Year's War in flavor.
And they are evidence that one needn't have bland, generic figures (High Medieval and Renaissance period soldiers were just as uniform and generic as the Dark Ages, just with differences in the materials used) that conform to the explicit, or implicit descriptions by an author of the peoples described in their world. THIS is where subjectivity enters the equation.
Someone can describe soldiers as being:
• Wearing high boots, a long chainmail shirt, with a tall helmet with black wings
• A plate corset, a bassinet helmet with a pleated aventail, and CHAINMAIL sleaves and leggings with plate braces and greaves covering those.
And then come up with an infinite number of subjective depictions of the objective facts about the two soldiers described.
And for GRRM's world... The Perry's HYW models fit nearly perfectly for the world described.
But they do not work for Tolkien's world. We know too much about the descriptions of the world (if not from the novels directly, then from the supplementary notes and writings he did to help describe the world to himself while writing, or in his correspondence with others) to pretend that the HYW period would be an appropriate choice for Middle-earth miniatures.
I cannot figure out WHY people have this attitude that because something is fiction, they can depict that fictional world in any way they wish, and have it make sense.
You might, for your own imaginative efforts, depict the World Of Larry Niven's Known Space as being in a Cave Man setting (after it It's ONLY/JUST fiction).
Yet, if you were to do so, no one else would have a freaking clue what they were seeing without a long, elaborate description of what the hell was going on.
And trying to pretend that this was what Larry Niven had in mind when he wrote the various Known Space Stories would be nothing but deceit (either of oneself, or of others).
Peter Jackson might not have strayed as far as depicting Niven's Known Space as Cave Man stories. But he did stray far enough from the author's intent (which we Can know because Tolkien, and his son, have been kind enough to provide us with pretty explicit accounts of their intent) that it lies much further into the "Grey" of the continuum than it does toward the end which is closest to Tolkien's intent (even if we can never get EXACTLY what Tolkien intended now that he is dead - we can approach it as we might approach a limit).
It would just be nice to have a broader selection of more appropriate miniatures; either proxied historicals, which can work for many of the minor nationalities, or ethnic groups, such as the Hill Peoples of the Second and Third Age in Gondor and Eriador, or the Foradan of Rhovanion in the Second to Third Ages, the Dunlendings - which are a group associated with the Hill People of Rhudaur who migrated to Calenardhon in the early Third Age, or the Easterlings of the First Age, whom Tolkien created as being explicitly Nordic/Norse. They are Vikings (more or less - again, the caveat due to Tolkien stating explicitly that there were no allegorical analogies between historical peoples or nations and the peoples of Middle-earth).
We can use style queues from the historical nations of the earth, but ultimately, the nations of Middle-earth are going to have their own distinctive styles, drawing upon the Dark Ages as those style queues from which we take the various appearances.
I guess people don't really care about accuracy that much? I mean the changes that annoyed me in the movies weren't costume decisions or anything so trivial as that. They were changes to character's motivations and intentions which detracted from the story.
The detail of whether the armour was plate or chain (and I would prefer chainmail Gondorians over the fairly boring platemail) are not important when compared to plot nonsense like the changes to Faramir, the Elves at Helm's Deep, Aragorn rejecting Arwen because Elrond told him to and Frodo sending Sam away (well, the whole "Ring Junkie" schtick with Frodo, blergh). These problems were far more serious and far more annoying to me than whether they got the swords the right shape for the elves or whatever. Visually, I was happy with the movies for the most part.
If someone does a better adaption, I will happily watch it.
To be honest, BeAfraid, it's your characterisation of the people you disagree with that I find difficult to stomach. I know you are trying to communicate clearly and honestly, but what you are clearly and honestly communicating is a snobbish disdain for anyone who does not agree with your position. And you tend towards hyperbolic examples and comparisons which give the impression of disrespect towards the other side.
I balance this with the fact that your posts show a large amount of research and effort and are generally at least a little thought provoking, but I can see where the irritation comes from, too.
Good luck with the Orcs though. If you can make them work, I may well be a customer.
BeAfraid wrote: Talk about completely missing the point (not that I am surprised, as most people outside of academia or the film industry itself don't understand the point).
I did not say that the sculpts produced by GW were not good.
They are fantastic.
But they are not The vision of Tolkien, they are the product almost solely of Peter Jackson.
In fact, while watching the last three of The Hobbit films, for research on our documentary, I noticed that they displayed a disclaimed that in Hollywood (or the Film Industry as a whole) is a Giant Red Flag:
In last two of the films, the disclaimer is:
Inspired by the works of JRR Tolkien.
In the first film, the disclaimer is:
Based upon the works of JRR Tolkien.
In Film Speak, the former is:
"We completely made up a film, using someone else's IP, which has pretty much nothing to do with that IP."
In Film Speak, the latter is:
"We tried to use the IP we claimed as much as possible, but our writers wanted to add their own stuff whenever possible."
When you see a film, such as To Kill a Mockingbird you will see a much more straightforward version of this disclaimer:
"The Film Adaptation of.... X"
There, you will see a very straightforward adaptation of a novel or writer's work (Such as 2001: A Space Oddysey).
You might claim "Realism be Damned," but how many of you would be playing the game if it allowed for the Orcs to shoot Rocket Propelled Grenades at their opponents, or of the Gondorians had tanks, or could leap across 200 meter gaps to get to the other side of the battlefield.
As for GW "always" having a license for Middle-earth.... No.
The Tolkien Estate (with which I speak every now and then about the development of our documentary on the popular depiction of Tolkien's works) has made it very clear that they are working to End Saul Zaentz's, and thus Peter Jackson's association with anything suggestive of Middle-earth.
And considering that GW's current license will expire in 2017, and considering that Christopher Tolkien has left instructions to the Tolkien Estate about Peter Jackson being explicitly prohibited from touching any other Tolkien property (or anyone associated with Weta, or New Line Cinema - the list is exhaustive, and essentially puts a purity test against any new licenses being granted) this means that not only will there be no more movies from Jackson to support the miniature's line, yet the license fee will remain in the many millions of dollars from New Line.... It is doubtful that GW would even want to retain the license.
And then we can bury the Peter Jackson Era of Middle-earth, and move on to producers and creators who are not so eager to eviscerate (Christopher Tolkien's word) Tolkien's creations.
Despite people's protestations, there is such a thing as being closer to what Tolkien intended and NOT being closer to what Tolkien intended (i.e. Being further from what he intended).
People are free to imagine whatever they wish regarding Middle-earth. But this does not mean that what they imagine is what Tolkien imagined it to be (and he left some pretty explicit paintings and descriptions for much of it).
But they are not entitled to their own facts. Facts exist as facts regardless of anyone's desires or imagination. Tolkien, and his estate own the Facts regarding Middle-earth, and when they label something as Not Middle-earth then it isn't Middle-earth (And Peter Jackson's works have been so labeled).
Popular culture might identify them as such. But popular culture doesn't get to vote on what is an isn't, regardless of whether a creation is fiction or not. It is still the creation of a specific person, who left that creation to another to be its guardian and executor. That creator has the right to reject depictions of his creation as having nothing to do with that creation.
But.... I am likely wasting my time here, as I don't think people are understanding this distinction based upon the replies.
MB
I don't think I've seen so many words at one time that I disagree with.
I'll just have to ignore your opinion from now on. On pretty much anything.
So we are basing communication on brief and incomplete thoughts or explanations for things people seem to misunderstand?
Being ignored by someone expressing no appreciation (or an outright disdain) of depth of thought is hardly upsetting.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I guess people don't really care about accuracy that much? I mean the changes that annoyed me in the movies weren't costume decisions or anything so trivial as that. They were changes to character's motivations and intentions which detracted from the story.
The detail of whether the armour was plate or chain (and I would prefer chainmail Gondorians over the fairly boring platemail) are not important when compared to plot nonsense like the changes to Faramir, the Elves at Helm's Deep, Aragorn rejecting Arwen because Elrond told him to and Frodo sending Sam away (well, the whole "Ring Junkie" schtick with Frodo, blergh). These problems were far more serious and far more annoying to me than whether they got the swords the right shape for the elves or whatever. Visually, I was happy with the movies for the most part.
If someone does a better adaption, I will happily watch it.
To be honest, BeAfraid, it's your characterisation of the people you disagree with that I find difficult to stomach. I know you are trying to communicate clearly and honestly, but what you are clearly and honestly communicating is a snobbish disdain for anyone who does not agree with your position. And you tend towards hyperbolic examples and comparisons which give the impression of disrespect towards the other side.
I balance this with the fact that your posts show a large amount of research and effort and are generally at least a little thought provoking, but I can see where the irritation comes from, too.
Good luck with the Orcs though. If you can make them work, I may well be a customer.
The armor is a minor detail to a gross mischaracterization.
And some of the points people see as minor (the Elve's Swords) are actually fairly major issues of gross mischaracterization.
The mischaracterizations are my whole point, and the appearance chosen to display those characterizations is just a side-show that deals specifically with the miniatures made.
The deviations from plot, and established Middle-earth History are why I have been saying that Jackson's portrayals have little to do with Middle-earth, not the set-dressing (which is exemplary of just poor research, but does not necessarily break canon).
But we don't make miniatures, typically, out of plot points, or deviations from the story (The Galadhrim would still exist, even if we had not seen them show up, and be slaughtered completely, at Helm's Deep). We don't make a miniature out of the mischaracterization of the Watchful Peace, or the motivations of Faramir, or Denethor.
I really like playing the system. I really like the models and the impression I get from them.
Really wish they had brought out the more armoured Dwarves in line formation as per the last Hobbit film. Pretty epic scene until the pewny elves jumped over them lol.
Luckily I have a good sized collection of Gondor etc. So I will always play the game with my friends.
Yeah, I reckon this game is on its way out, though I can't claim to know much about what's happening with the license and what have you.
With any look though, should this happen, GW will put up the rules for free on their website (I know some of the rules are free, I mean like all the sourcebooks like Kingdoms of Men models etc). It's a great game system, and free rules would encourage some people to pick it up and have a go, and I'd certainly keep playing it if this was the case (I don't actually have any of the rules at the moment...).
I know it's not typical GW behavior, but they did this with the WD-only rules.
Your models are a fine fan-made effort. However if I want something in a Tom Meier style I will purchase Thunderbolt and not some derivative and inferior work.
Your models are a fine fan-made effort. However if I want something in a Tom Meier style I will purchase Thunderbolt and not some derivative and inferior work.
keep practicing though, you show promise.
Good luck getting models that Tom does not make, and never plans on making.
After reading through this thread, and doing my best to tolerate BeAfraid's obvious agenda and arrogance, I figure as a lurker I'd toss out my 2 coppers, as well.
I am an enormous fan of Tolkien's books. Like many, I was introduced to them at a young age, and have enjoyed them again and again over many decades.
I am also an enormous fan of PJ's movies. MASSIVELY enormous fan. I've watched them all multiple times, extended editions, marathon showings of all three back to back, etc. And will continue to do so for years to come.
I've had plenty of arguments with 'purists'. Ultimately, it really comes down to a simple understanding: the movies are works based on/inspired by Tolkien's works. They are not, and were -never meant to be-, word-for-word adaptations of his works.
If you can keep that one simple thing in mind - you really have no grounds at all to be as bent out of shape by the mere mention of Peter Jackson's name as you seem to be.
I personally don't care what Chris Tolkien, or the 'Tolkien Estate' thinks of the movies - I am a thinking person and am capable of forming my -own- opinions. They've made money off their dead relative's works. They, too, understood that PJ was never intending to make a word-for-word adaptation of their ancestor's works. They might be trying to change their tune now, but that's the simple fact of the matter. The movies were -always- going to be 'based on/inspired by', and nothing more. As others have so eloquently explained in this thread, a 'word for word' faithful' adaptation would likely require far more than three films. You'd probably be looking at something more Game of Thrones-ish, a long running TV series or something in order to do the books full justice.
To me, what PJ did was -astounding-, especially given the source material (Fantasy, which up to that point had difficulties in cinema), and given the era in which LotR was written (~50 years prior). PJ got across the -major- themes of Tolkien's works: Good over evil, sacrifice, love, the evolution of mankind, etc. At least -I- got all of that from the movies. What -you- got might be something entirely different.
The movies re-introduced the LotR books to an entire -generation- in a way the Tolkien estate couldn't have ever imagined. Maybe they won't admit it, I have no idea why they wouldn't.
Thankfully, it seems the majority of movie goers completely disagrees with a lot of your assessments. Looking at revenues generated, and a record-setting academy award season following RotK (including Best Director to PJ), the movies were a -mega hit-, no matter what you, or the Tolkien estate thinks of them. I see you mention many times that the Tolkien estate would like to sweep the movies under the carpet, Chris Tolkien would like the 'undo' the movies, etc... but again - that just isn't realistic, at least not in this generation. Ain't gonna happen.
Personally - I absolutely -laugh- when I see purists get all bent up in knots about this subject. I know that might make me an a-hole, but that's ok. I am fine with that. But I -can- differentiate and keep the movies -separate- from the books, where purists can't.
It does get tiring seeing people go on and on about what JRR would or would not have 'liked'. "OMG! JRRT would be rolling in his grave!" Would he? Really? To see his films brought to life ~50 years AFTER the fact in a way that touched -millions- of viewers? I think you, and the Tolkien estate, do JRRT a disservice by pretending to 'know' how he would judge the movies based on their own merits. I worked in a B&N at the time these movies came out. I saw -first hand- the number of kids, especially, who came in looking for the books BECAUSE of the movies, and that was just at my one store. Do you -really- have the nerve to believe JRRT would be pissed about that? Or do you REALLY think he'd be more pissed that Tom Bombadil was (thankfully) omitted from the movies?
I've read about Chris Tolkien's 'issues' with the movies, that PJ ignored the 'beauty' of JRR's works. Really? Did he watch the same movies the rest of us did? From Hobbiton in the beginning, to Mount Doom at the end, the movies are -filled- with beauty, much of which was -painstakingly- created. From the Mines of Moria, to Lothlorien, and all the places before and after... and Rivendell? How could anyone have watched these movies and said, "Meh, it looked plain'? Seriously? No - I submit Chris - and the rest of the Estate - are simply angry about the litigation over revenues and payouts. I assert that it comes down to -money-, as usual. And personally, I have to wonder just how much PJ himself is involved with that?
In the end - purists STILL need to get over themselves. So the movies were not a direct adaptation. It was never meant to be. And there may never be one. Keep on praying for a reboot! As a fan of the books myself, I'll watch it! But that will in no way diminish the love I have for PJs movies in the -slightest-. If a reboot ever occurred and if it was 'more truthful' to the books - GREAT! Again, having a 'more accurate' movie/TV series will not diminish PJ's works. Not to me, and not to millions of other fans, no matter how much you, the Tolkien estate, or any other purist rants about it.
As far as GW's LotR line goes - I think most of us with brain cells realize that the ride for that would last as long as the movies could be milked. LotR has been done. The Hobbit has been done. There isn't a reboot likely in the future, and GW obviously doesn't get to use the Tolkien license for free. The notion that the license would eventually go away is something I think most people knew would eventually happen. Would it be nice for GW to have the license longer? Of course, but the asking price will certainly be too high.
I am also an enormous fan of PJ's movies. MASSIVELY enormous fan. I've watched them all multiple times, extended editions, marathon showings of all three back to back, etc. And will continue to do so for years to come.
Would that include when some hypothetical closer and superior movie versions would be released?
I've had plenty of arguments with 'purists'. Ultimately, it really comes down to a simple understanding: the movies are works based on/inspired by Tolkien's works. They are not, and were -never meant to be-, word-for-word adaptations of his works.
If you can keep that one simple thing in mind - you really have no grounds at all to be as bent out of shape by the mere mention of Peter Jackson's name as you seem to be.
Aye, I remember seeing it all over the movie posters.
a 'word for word' faithful' adaptation would likely require far more than three films.
Your simple misunderstanding is that's exactly what you think 'purists' want.
To me, what PJ did was -astounding-, especially given the source material (Fantasy, which up to that point had difficulties in cinema), and given the era in which LotR was written (~50 years prior). PJ got across the -major- themes of Tolkien's works: Good over evil, sacrifice, love, the evolution of mankind, etc. At least -I- got all of that from the movies. What -you- got might be something entirely different.
I got Hobbits almost landing in doggak, people and things who couldn't stop shouting and flailing about even in calm situations, and dwarf-tossing.
Thankfully, it seems the majority of movie goers completely disagrees with a lot of your assessments. Looking at revenues generated, and a record-setting academy award season following RotK (including Best Director to PJ), the movies were a -mega hit-, no matter what you, or the Tolkien estate thinks of them.
So was the Transformers trilogy. No matter what the Tolkien Estate thinks of them.
Personally - I absolutely -laugh- when I see purists get all bent up in knots about this subject. I know that might make me an a-hole, but that's ok. I am fine with that. But I -can- differentiate and keep the movies -separate- from the books, where purists can't.
Oh, don't worry about that. It was painfully obvious to 'purists' that the movies are separate from the books, from the start.
It does get tiring seeing people go on and on about what JRR would or would not have 'liked'. "OMG! JRRT would be rolling in his grave!" Would he? Really? To see his films brought to life ~50 years AFTER the fact in a way that touched -millions- of viewers? I think you, and the Tolkien estate, do JRRT a disservice by pretending to 'know' how he would judge the movies based on their own merits.
Being a Tolkien fan and a booky kind of person, have you read The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien? Man bloody hated people meddling with his stuff and misinterpreting his characters, especially for screen adaptations.
I worked in a B&N at the time these movies came out. I saw -first hand- the number of kids, especially, who came in looking for the books BECAUSE of the movies, and that was just at my one store.
Did they end up reading them? Did they end up buying them?
I've read about Chris Tolkien's 'issues' with the movies, that PJ ignored the 'beauty' of JRR's works. Really? Did he watch the same movies the rest of us did? From Hobbiton in the beginning, to Mount Doom at the end, the movies are -filled- with beauty, much of which was -painstakingly- created. From the Mines of Moria, to Lothlorien, and all the places before and after... and Rivendell? How could anyone have watched these movies and said, "Meh, it looked plain'? Seriously?
Yes, because when I read my copies, little holograms of Hobbiton, Mount Doom, and everything in between leap from the pages. That's exactly the issue.
Keep on praying for a reboot! As a fan of the books myself, I'll watch it! But that will in no way diminish the love I have for PJs movies in the -slightest-. If a reboot ever occurred and if it was 'more truthful' to the books - GREAT! Again, having a 'more accurate' movie/TV series will not diminish PJ's works. Not to me, and not to millions of other fans, no matter how much you, the Tolkien estate, or any other purist rants about it.
I guess that answers my first question. I can imagine you as a Peter Jackson 'purist', clutching your obsolete blu-rays and muttering about the 'real' LotR movies, while millions of other fans hail the new versions.
I don't care who ends up with the licence for the minis, so long as they actually produce a model of Thranduil actually ridng his actual god-damned elk - not a bloody horse!
I'm serious, that is my biggest concern. That thing was amazing. It was fabulous. I came out of the cinema and I thought to myself "that will be my first LotR/Hobbit mini - I simply must have it!" And then I went online, and I saw the aforementioned bloody horse. And then I found out that GW have dropped support for this line, and thus won't be rectifying it.
All this talk of Jackson's supposed defilement of Tolkien's work is all well and good (and veering somewhat off-topic), but you guys think you've got it bad? Try being a fan of Weta Workshop's designs and a tabletop enthusiast, and then seeing what they replaced Thranduil's majestic elk with. Now that's real suffering.
GW eviscerated poor Thranduil's ride. ...Not literally - literally, they just replaced it with a horse - but you know what I mean. Those filthy bloody heathens.
Well at this point I assume GW's LotR game is dead. Luckily we generally do small battle company games/scenarios/campaigns in my group sorry we have most of the GWLotR range already barring a few exceptions such as the near mythical Khandish chariots.
As for where it goes in the future? I'd like GW to keep the ruleset alive and available, and also adapt it to other settings. It's clean and simple, though it does lack a bit of depth, it's perfect for quick games or introducing people to the hobby due to the well known Peter Jackson adaptation/inspiration aesthetics. The figures are also simple to paint and assemble and are great for beginners, especially of trying to copy a movie still for inspiration.
If someone wanted to make a purist version or whatever term we want to call it, sure go nuts. I enjoy dark age aesthetics as well. I'm a fan of some of the themes of Middle Earth, though not a huge fan of Tolkien's writing. Similarly I enjoy the aesthetics and themes of Peter Jackson's Fellowship and The Two Towers, even if I dislike the the plot holes and much of the tension removing dialogue prevelant throughout the trilogy, especially in Return of the King. I respect Tolkien's vision even if I'm not his biggest fan, likewise with Peter Jackson.
As long as any potential purist figures are well made, or any potential purist film adaptation looks cool and reflects the themes of the work I'm going to be happy.
It does take the cost of the mini even higher, but if you gotta get an elk and have moderate GS skills then that's your best bet.
Thanks! How brilliant that they even attached a how-to video! That's some pretty great customer service.
I hadn't wanted to attempt a conversion, but with this resource, I might just do that. Still hoping that some company produces a good quality Thrandu-elk, to take the work out of it, but I think I'm covered now if they don't!
My local GW store manager told me the license was up at the end of the year and that he hasn't heard anything relating to GW renewing it. He told me that there had been some major cut backs as the game as a whole isn't making enough money. Hopefully they release a small skirmish rule set in the form of a book or online PDF as it would be a waste to just abandon the rules as for me personally I think that the Lotr/hobbit rule set is the best GW have produced and can be easily adapted to fit any scenario.
andyroo9000 wrote: My local GW store manager told me the license was up at the end of the year and that he hasn't heard anything relating to GW renewing it. He told me that there had been some major cut backs as the game as a whole isn't making enough money. Hopefully they release a small skirmish rule set in the form of a book or online PDF as it would be a waste to just abandon the rules as for me personally I think that the Lotr/hobbit rule set is the best GW have produced and can be easily adapted to fit any scenario.
I would agree with that last comment (That the LotR rules are among the best GW have ever produced).
Aside from a few minor assumptions they make regarding the utility of weapons' length in a skirmish game, the rules are at least designed around skirmish level actions (below unit-level behavior of agents or tokens in the game).
It is similar to other, similar games, such as SAGA, yet with a magic system attached (which tends to be the other flaw, in that magic is not a typical part of Middle-earth, being limited to very rare instances). But the magic system does work well for what it does. And most people tend to think of Fantasy Gaming more in terms of Dungeons and Dragons than anything else, so that is not exactly surprising.
I doubt that their license would expire at the end of the year, though. I doubt that New Line would be asking an arm and a leg for the license considering it is such a minor part of the merchandising of their license for Middle-earth material via Saul Zaendt's license.
But they could surrender the license voluntarily. But doing so would be extremely problematic.
It is far more likely that they will keep the license, but simply begin closing down the product line. This would prevent competitors from buying the license and introducing a competing product line.
I know that Mithril would be all over a License if it was suddenly opened. This has been the only thing preventing Mithril from producing figures usable for armies (which they used to do prior to 2001, when the first movie came out).
But no matter which way the wind blows with the Middle-earth licenses, eventually GWWILL be losing the license, one way or another, when Saul Zaendt's license expires (from which New Line's license is derived, and it is from New Line that GW's license is derived).
So, when Zaent's license expires, it begins a cascade of licenses lost, and reverting to the Tolkien Estate, as I mentioned before.
It is then that gamers will need to worry, as the Tolkien Estate puts more value upon what people derisively call "purists" than it does money. That and the Estate tends to look down upon the whole idea of a "Wargame."
So... It could come down to having no official miniatures for Middle-earth.
Whilst there would be no official figures there are plenty of options for alternative figures, however the downside being they would not match up aesthetically with the GW range for any existing collectors.
I'd be sad if the estate only wanted to cater for purists, again for lack of better term. I don't intend to use the term with derision, although it can seem inflammatory so I don't enjoy using it. I can understand the estate's drive to present only Tolkien's singular vision and why they would shy away from wargames. I think it's a mistake for a variety of reasons, and a tad sad, but it is what it is. As long as they keep the current Cubicle 7 One Ring rpg I'd be happy.
Zond wrote: Whilst there would be no official figures there are plenty of options for alternative figures, however the downside being they would not match up aesthetically with the GW range for any existing collectors.
I'd be sad if the estate only wanted to cater for purists, again for lack of better term. I don't intend to use the term with derision, although it can seem inflammatory so I don't enjoy using it. I can understand the estate's drive to present only Tolkien's singular vision and why they would shy away from wargames. I think it's a mistake for a variety of reasons, and a tad sad, but it is what it is. As long as they keep the current Cubicle 7 One Ring rpg I'd be happy.
I know that personally, my own goal is to have the miniatures I am working on "fit" with the GW ones.
Many of them can be salvaged as "Fourth Age" miniatures (Especially Gondor and the Easterlings). Although the Easterlings are a bit of an ambiguity, as the latter Third Age Easterlings give us so little to go upon other than that they were armed with spears and axes, and had "great bows." Tolkien, in his personal writings, now at Marquette University used the words "Legion" and MAYBE "cohort" (the word is somewhat illegible. Tolkien's handwriting is atrocious).
As for the Estate being "anti-Wargame" I can completely understand that attitude. And the whole point of the Estate with regard to Tolkien's work is to maintain the "purity' of it (although there is some debate about the extension of Middle-earth, and whether JRRT intended Christopher to add to the stories, rather than simply acting as a compiler and editor). Tolkien did state in letters to Vhristopher that he hoped that Christopher would continue to write and develop the mythology. But Christopher has so far refused to add anything, for fear that any addition he might make could or would conflict with something that his father had written (even if that conflicting script was eventually rejected by JRRT).
The "anti-Wargame" attitude is really a rather strong anti-war sentiment. And all of the Tolkien's were affected rather negatively by both World Wars. The major theme of the final chapters of The Lord of the Rings are Tolkien's expression of a rather fanatical pacifism, as expressed through Frodo's refusal to even touch a weapon, and the attitudes expressed during The Scouring of the Shire where it is expressed that martial qualities (the Ruffians) cannot withstand a society that rejects violence as a means of its ends.
So.... The Estate tends to view us (people who wish to "re-enact" battles and wars) rather negatively.
I do know that Michael Tolkien's children tend to be much less conservative than Christopher, and much more open to the extension of JRRT's works as well. And it is likely that it will be Michael Tolkien's children who take over the Estate after Christopher dies (although Christopher has left pretty binding instructions for the executors of the Estate that leave little wiggle room).
Eventually, though, Tolkien's works will fall into the Public Domain... At which point we will likely see countless derivatives, interpretations, and outright revisionist renditions of stories set within Middle-earth.
After reading through this thread, and doing my best to tolerate BeAfraid's obvious agenda and arrogance, I figure as a lurker I'd toss out my 2 coppers, as well.
I am an enormous fan of Tolkien's books. Like many, I was introduced to them at a young age, and have enjoyed them again and again over many decades.
I am also an enormous fan of PJ's movies. MASSIVELY enormous fan. I've watched them all multiple times, extended editions, marathon showings of all three back to back, etc. And will continue to do so for years to come.
I've had plenty of arguments with 'purists'. Ultimately, it really comes down to a simple understanding: the movies are works based on/inspired by Tolkien's works. They are not, and were -never meant to be-, word-for-word adaptations of his works.
If you can keep that one simple thing in mind - you really have no grounds at all to be as bent out of shape by the mere mention of Peter Jackson's name as you seem to be.
I personally don't care what Chris Tolkien, or the 'Tolkien Estate' thinks of the movies - I am a thinking person and am capable of forming my -own- opinions. They've made money off their dead relative's works. They, too, understood that PJ was never intending to make a word-for-word adaptation of their ancestor's works. They might be trying to change their tune now, but that's the simple fact of the matter. The movies were -always- going to be 'based on/inspired by', and nothing more. As others have so eloquently explained in this thread, a 'word for word' faithful' adaptation would likely require far more than three films. You'd probably be looking at something more Game of Thrones-ish, a long running TV series or something in order to do the books full justice.
To me, what PJ did was -astounding-, especially given the source material (Fantasy, which up to that point had difficulties in cinema), and given the era in which LotR was written (~50 years prior). PJ got across the -major- themes of Tolkien's works: Good over evil, sacrifice, love, the evolution of mankind, etc. At least -I- got all of that from the movies. What -you- got might be something entirely different.
The movies re-introduced the LotR books to an entire -generation- in a way the Tolkien estate couldn't have ever imagined. Maybe they won't admit it, I have no idea why they wouldn't.
Thankfully, it seems the majority of movie goers completely disagrees with a lot of your assessments. Looking at revenues generated, and a record-setting academy award season following RotK (including Best Director to PJ), the movies were a -mega hit-, no matter what you, or the Tolkien estate thinks of them. I see you mention many times that the Tolkien estate would like to sweep the movies under the carpet, Chris Tolkien would like the 'undo' the movies, etc... but again - that just isn't realistic, at least not in this generation. Ain't gonna happen.
Personally - I absolutely -laugh- when I see purists get all bent up in knots about this subject. I know that might make me an a-hole, but that's ok. I am fine with that. But I -can- differentiate and keep the movies -separate- from the books, where purists can't.
It does get tiring seeing people go on and on about what JRR would or would not have 'liked'. "OMG! JRRT would be rolling in his grave!" Would he? Really? To see his films brought to life ~50 years AFTER the fact in a way that touched -millions- of viewers? I think you, and the Tolkien estate, do JRRT a disservice by pretending to 'know' how he would judge the movies based on their own merits. I worked in a B&N at the time these movies came out. I saw -first hand- the number of kids, especially, who came in looking for the books BECAUSE of the movies, and that was just at my one store. Do you -really- have the nerve to believe JRRT would be pissed about that? Or do you REALLY think he'd be more pissed that Tom Bombadil was (thankfully) omitted from the movies?
I've read about Chris Tolkien's 'issues' with the movies, that PJ ignored the 'beauty' of JRR's works. Really? Did he watch the same movies the rest of us did? From Hobbiton in the beginning, to Mount Doom at the end, the movies are -filled- with beauty, much of which was -painstakingly- created. From the Mines of Moria, to Lothlorien, and all the places before and after... and Rivendell? How could anyone have watched these movies and said, "Meh, it looked plain'? Seriously? No - I submit Chris - and the rest of the Estate - are simply angry about the litigation over revenues and payouts. I assert that it comes down to -money-, as usual. And personally, I have to wonder just how much PJ himself is involved with that?
In the end - purists STILL need to get over themselves. So the movies were not a direct adaptation. It was never meant to be. And there may never be one. Keep on praying for a reboot! As a fan of the books myself, I'll watch it! But that will in no way diminish the love I have for PJs movies in the -slightest-. If a reboot ever occurred and if it was 'more truthful' to the books - GREAT! Again, having a 'more accurate' movie/TV series will not diminish PJ's works. Not to me, and not to millions of other fans, no matter how much you, the Tolkien estate, or any other purist rants about it.
As far as GW's LotR line goes - I think most of us with brain cells realize that the ride for that would last as long as the movies could be milked. LotR has been done. The Hobbit has been done. There isn't a reboot likely in the future, and GW obviously doesn't get to use the Tolkien license for free. The notion that the license would eventually go away is something I think most people knew would eventually happen. Would it be nice for GW to have the license longer? Of course, but the asking price will certainly be too high.
Just my two coppers, though.
Wow!!! Mort you must of been reading my mind, This is my same exact view. Love the books and movies, I re-read the books every two years, Watch the movies over and over that I know all the lines.
Wow!!! Mort you must of been reading my mind, This is my same exact view. Love the books and movies, I re-read the books every two years, Watch the movies over and over that I know all the lines.
Thank you sir. I know my post probably came off a LOT more harshly than I intended, but it gets old dealing with narrow-minded people.
It's the same way some fans freak out over little things in the Marvel movies, or whatever. The movies do not render your books/comics 'invalid'. Peter Jackson is not going to steal your copies of Lord of the Rings books. And I can't count the number of times I've heard people tell me, "I never would have read the books if it wasn't for the movies'.
Exposing more people to the books, to Tolkien's works, is a GOOD THING, in my eyes, no matter how much someone hates the movies, and in a lot of people's eyes, those movies will live on far longer than the books will anyway, as we all know they aren't exactly 'easy' to read.
Wow!!! Mort you must of been reading my mind, This is my same exact view. Love the books and movies, I re-read the books every two years, Watch the movies over and over that I know all the lines.
Thank you sir. I know my post probably came off a LOT more harshly than I intended, but it gets old dealing with narrow-minded people.
It's the same way some fans freak out over little things in the Marvel movies, or whatever. The movies do not render your books/comics 'invalid'. Peter Jackson is not going to steal your copies of Lord of the Rings books. And I can't count the number of times I've heard people tell me, "I never would have read the books if it wasn't for the movies'.
Exposing more people to the books, to Tolkien's works, is a GOOD THING, in my eyes, no matter how much someone hates the movies, and in a lot of people's eyes, those movies will live on far longer than the books will anyway, as we all know they aren't exactly 'easy' to read.
Anyway, sorry for the rant.
-Mort
I was in my mid-40's when I took my wife and kids to see the LOTR and I was totally amazed by the movies. My wife had no idea about LOTR, but she really enjoyed the movies, she cried when Gandalf "died". My philosophy is life is too short to nitpick about small things.
what??? You have a problem with Peter Jackson's movies, fine, I like the movies and I'm sure majority of other people here like them. If it is such a beef to you, start up another thread as to why you hate the movies and how the Tolkien estate should sue whoever bought the rights and how the miniatures should have a more "Tolkienese" look of Orcs.
I am not going to change your mind how you feel about the movies/figures and you are not going to change mine. This is called agreeing to disagree and so we carry on with other things that get us through life.
Stop beating a dead horse.
what??? You have a problem with Peter Jackson's movies, fine, I like the movies and I'm sure majority of other people here like them. If it is such a beef to you, start up another thread as to why you hate the movies and how the Tolkien estate should sue whoever bought the rights and how the miniatures should have a more "Tolkienese" look of Orcs.
I am not going to change your mind how you feel about the movies/figures and you are not going to change mine. This is called agreeing to disagree and so we carry on with other things that get us through life.
Stop beating a dead horse.
what??? You have a problem with Peter Jackson's movies, fine, I like the movies and I'm sure majority of other people here like them. If it is such a beef to you, start up another thread as to why you hate the movies and how the Tolkien estate should sue whoever bought the rights and how the miniatures should have a more "Tolkienese" look of Orcs.
I am not going to change your mind how you feel about the movies/figures and you are not going to change mine. This is called agreeing to disagree and so we carry on with other things that get us through life.
Stop beating a dead horse.
He's trolling. I slapped him on ignore, and suddenly my Dakka experience has increased dramatically.
He's not going to change minds. The movies have been out long enough now that folks either like them or they don't. The purist-rage against Peter Jackson is just so amazingly silly that it truly is ludicrous.
George R R Martin recently responded with the perfect reply recently over the 'outrage' concerning the changes to Game of Thrones series vs. his books. "The show is the show, the books are the books; two different tellings of the same story."
what??? You have a problem with Peter Jackson's movies, fine, I like the movies and I'm sure majority of other people here like them. If it is such a beef to you, start up another thread as to why you hate the movies and how the Tolkien estate should sue whoever bought the rights and how the miniatures should have a more "Tolkienese" look of Orcs.
I am not going to change your mind how you feel about the movies/figures and you are not going to change mine. This is called agreeing to disagree and so we carry on with other things that get us through life.
Stop beating a dead horse.
And still completely missing the point.
MB
I'm sure that everybody in this thread and several neighboring threads has got your point. They just don't agree with it.
But you seem to like making assumptions about other people based on the premise that they can only comprehend things at your level or below it. That's an assumption you need to challenge hard. You seem to be a very knowledgeable man, so please remember Rabbi Hillel's famous quote and act on it.
PS: Remember that respect is not just earned, but also lost.
what??? You have a problem with Peter Jackson's movies, fine, I like the movies and I'm sure majority of other people here like them. If it is such a beef to you, start up another thread as to why you hate the movies and how the Tolkien estate should sue whoever bought the rights and how the miniatures should have a more "Tolkienese" look of Orcs.
I am not going to change your mind how you feel about the movies/figures and you are not going to change mine. This is called agreeing to disagree and so we carry on with other things that get us through life.
Stop beating a dead horse.
And still completely missing the point.
MB
I'm sure that everybody in this thread and several neighboring threads has got your point. They just don't agree with it.
But you seem to like making assumptions about other people based on the premise that they can only comprehend things at your level or below it. That's an assumption you need to challenge hard. You seem to be a very knowledgeable man, so please remember Rabbi Hillel's famous quote and act on it.
PS: Remember that respect is not just earned, but also lost.
I am pretty sure that if I saw a response that was anywhere close to responding to the point I actually made I would recognize it.
It is as if I pointed to a pig and said "That is not a horse." and everyone responded with accusations of bigotry against pigs or bacon.
Just to draw back to the initial question in the title of this thread, I've been picking up models here and there, and I'm finding that any current rulebooks, and anything that essentially wasn't in Battle Games in Middle Earth is actually quite pricey on the market at the moment. I'm very much getting the impression that there's a lively and growing tournament scene in LOTR in the UK (the Great British Hobbit League) which is pulling in new members ( the number of tournaments/attendees keeps expanding) and placing the market under a decent amount of demand.
This is all very encouraging as far as I'm concerned. It wouldn't be the first time (Battlefleet Gothic, Blood Bowl, etc) that a game actually took off more as it hit the indie circuit and GW let go of it. Lord of the Rings seems to have a wide enough model variety, a tight enough ruleset, and enough of a fan/fluff base that it may well be the next one to do so.
I do hope so. While part of the price increase is a reaction to stuff going/threatening to go OOP and GW's own 2-300% price increases on plastics, there had certainly been an upswing in interest around the last film, where it actually got back to battling, rather then a dozen Dwarves against the world. (Not that the latter isn't fun to play, but armies clashing is what draws more people to the tabletop game than narrative stuff).
I don't think the game itself and the community are going anywhere soon. While GW rather let BotFA pass them by for whatever reason, there have been plenty of conversions, batreps and house rules for it. The GBHL's American Cousin, the DCHL formed just last year and are rapidly expanding, as well as putting out great hobby content/promoting other fan made stuff. The new SBG fanzine I posted about yesterday is an excellent publication and they're already working on the next two issues.
The biggest problem facing LotR at the moment is the discontinuation of sometimes key minis. If the old and amazingly complete LotR range had stayed in production, even with metal/Finecast 'cast on demand', we'd have nothing to worry about, but with more stuff disappearing every day, and replacements not all that common (whereas plenty of people make Not-romunda or Battle fleet Not-hic) yet, some effort is required to create certain minis ourselves. With plastics and moderate conversion skill, and a few Historical/generic fantasy parts, it's possible to cover most things, but I do wonder how many people new to the hobby at large are put off by needing to convert what they could have just bought a couple of years ago. Especially for the more unique stuff, it can be a little daunting. The lack of new stuff doesn't help; I wonder how many people saw BotFA, went into GW to pick up Dain and some Dwarf Pikemen only to find out they don't do them at all, or baulked at the price of Thranduil's Elves in Finecast.
Still, though, I have no doubt the game will live on, amongst those who already played, but without an easy way to attract new blood, it might be hard to grow. That said, there are still a fair number of folks on forums looking to start up, and people ready to help them out, so we shall see.
Paradigm wrote: I do hope so. While part of the price increase is a reaction to stuff going/threatening to go OOP and GW's own 2-300% price increases on plastics, there had certainly been an upswing in interest around the last film, where it actually got back to battling, rather then a dozen Dwarves against the world. (Not that the latter isn't fun to play, but armies clashing is what draws more people to the tabletop game than narrative stuff).
I don't think the game itself and the community are going anywhere soon. While GW rather let BotFA pass them by for whatever reason, there have been plenty of conversions, batreps and house rules for it. The GBHL's American Cousin, the DCHL formed just last year and are rapidly expanding, as well as putting out great hobby content/promoting other fan made stuff. The new SBG fanzine I posted about yesterday is an excellent publication and they're already working on the next two issues.
The biggest problem facing LotR at the moment is the discontinuation of sometimes key minis. If the old and amazingly complete LotR range had stayed in production, even with metal/Finecast 'cast on demand', we'd have nothing to worry about, but with more stuff disappearing every day, and replacements not all that common (whereas plenty of people make Not-romunda or Battle fleet Not-hic) yet, some effort is required to create certain minis ourselves. With plastics and moderate conversion skill, and a few Historical/generic fantasy parts, it's possible to cover most things, but I do wonder how many people new to the hobby at large are put off by needing to convert what they could have just bought a couple of years ago. Especially for the more unique stuff, it can be a little daunting. The lack of new stuff doesn't help; I wonder how many people saw BotFA, went into GW to pick up Dain and some Dwarf Pikemen only to find out they don't do them at all, or baulked at the price of Thranduil's Elves in Finecast.
Still, though, I have no doubt the game will live on, amongst those who already played, but without an easy way to attract new blood, it might be hard to grow. That said, there are still a fair number of folks on forums looking to start up, and people ready to help them out, so we shall see.
The easiest way to do it, quite frankly, would be for a little company to identify all the OOP stuff, and sculpt appropriate replacements as they go out of production, Blood Bowl style, so that the game is still accessible for new entrants. You could then buy 'not-Dain', 'Generic Dwarfish pikeman' and so on then. I'll be frank, the rules are tight, and any replacement will struggle to outdo them. If alternative models are available to replace those that are hard to find though, there's little to stop people getting into the game (especially with the core plastic troops so very cheap!)
I find it entertaining however, that the Hobbit/LOTR range seems to be doing best when GW give the least amount of support/interest though....
I'm sure stuff like that will turn up in time. Some stuff (orcs, non-Gondor humans) are pretty well covered by the likes of WGF/Perry/Fireforge in conversion-friendly kits with lots of options. The biggest gaps that I see are truescale Dwarves/Elves en masse, and bigger orcs (for Gundabad/Morannon/Uruks) that don't go into Warhammer-esque overblown proportions. There are some out there for those, but mostly in metal and either hard to get outside of their country of origin or expensive to get multiples of.
But frankly there's never been a better time for the hobby at large for choice or variety, so I have faith serviceable replacements (intended or otherwise) will appear.
If it were not for people's fixation on the Peter Jackson/Weta design aesthetic, I am doing exactly what has been described:
Sculpting replacements for the GW stuff.
But I am using a design aesthetic that is closer to what Tolkien described (contrary to some people' salamis, there is a MASSIVE differentiation between the various factions - although some less than others) in the various works, and his own personal essays (published in The History of Middle-earth, or remarked upon in The Letters of JRRT).
I am finally getting around to doing some concept art for the minis I have not yet got around to sculpting (it has taken some time due to my 3D design skills being vastly better than my 2D skills).
So people will be able to get a better idea of what direction I am taking.
The minis should be compatible with the GW stuff as well (with some minor contrasts in some factions).
Such as the Gondorians I am doing should work as Soldiers from the Wealthier Fiefs for the GW minis, Such as Pelargir, Ethir Anduin, the Lamedon Lowlands, or Morthond Vale (which had actual warriors other than the famed Archers).
But if people are wedded to the GW minis, then they need to grab what they can now.
BeAfraid wrote: If it were not for people's fixation on the Peter Jackson/Weta design aesthetic, I am doing exactly what has been described:
Sculpting replacements for the GW stuff.
But I am using a design aesthetic that is closer to what Tolkien described (contrary to some people' salamis, there is a MASSIVE differentiation between the various factions - although some less than others) in the various works, and his own personal essays (published in The History of Middle-earth, or remarked upon in The Letters of JRRT).
I am finally getting around to doing some concept art for the minis I have not yet got around to sculpting (it has taken some time due to my 3D design skills being vastly better than my 2D skills).
So people will be able to get a better idea of what direction I am taking.
The minis should be compatible with the GW stuff as well (with some minor contrasts in some factions).
Such as the Gondorians I am doing should work as Soldiers from the Wealthier Fiefs for the GW minis, Such as Pelargir, Ethir Anduin, the Lamedon Lowlands, or Morthond Vale (which had actual warriors other than the famed Archers).
But if people are wedded to the GW minis, then they need to grab what they can now.
MB
Speaking purely from a business perspective, you might have better luck if you can expand on stuff that GW hasn't already done, or stuff that is severely OOP (like Dalamyr). Redoing Warriors of Minas Tirith probably won't get you very far in terms of a customer base, by pure virtue of the fact that people can pick up HIPS alternatives for a song. The same again for standard trolls or Uruk-Hai and suchlike. Doing 'Gondorian Aristocrat Bodyguards' that could pass as either Citadel Guard, or an entirely new unit with a profile drawn up by yourself or the fans however, would generate infinitely more sales.
I think you have to more or less resolve yourself to the fact that whatever you make will be acting in a supplementary sense to the GW stuff, rather than a replacement. If not, all it takes is someone else doing that, and you'll be pushed out of the market, and not make your time/'money back. Unless it's a personal project, of course.
The biggest gaps that I see are truescale Dwarves/Elves en masse, and bigger orcs (for Gundabad/Morannon/Uruks) that don't go into Warhammer-esque overblown proportions. There are some out there for those, but mostly in metal and either hard to get outside of their country of origin or expensive to get multiples of.
But frankly there's never been a better time for the hobby at large for choice or variety, so I have faith serviceable replacements (intended or otherwise) will appear.
BeAfraid wrote: If it were not for people's fixation on the Peter Jackson/Weta design aesthetic, I am doing exactly what has been described:
Sculpting replacements for the GW stuff.
But I am using a design aesthetic that is closer to what Tolkien described (contrary to some people' salamis, there is a MASSIVE differentiation between the various factions - although some less than others) in the various works, and his own personal essays (published in The History of Middle-earth, or remarked upon in The Letters of JRRT).
I am finally getting around to doing some concept art for the minis I have not yet got around to sculpting (it has taken some time due to my 3D design skills being vastly better than my 2D skills).
So people will be able to get a better idea of what direction I am taking.
The minis should be compatible with the GW stuff as well (with some minor contrasts in some factions).
Such as the Gondorians I am doing should work as Soldiers from the Wealthier Fiefs for the GW minis, Such as Pelargir, Ethir Anduin, the Lamedon Lowlands, or Morthond Vale (which had actual warriors other than the famed Archers).
But if people are wedded to the GW minis, then they need to grab what they can now.
MB
Kind of echoing what Ketara said, but is this about business or in creating a more 'faithful' range (not that the two are mutually exclusive)? Because while the latter is admirable and your work so far does look promising, I think there might be money to be made in replacing some of the OOPGW stuff in a style that is less Tolkien and more Jackson. For example, if you were to sculpt some 'Orcs with Tower Shields and crested helms' (Black Guard of Barad Dur) or 'Warriors of the Far South' (Mahud) ect, you'd open yourself to a far wider audience than straight replacements for Mordor Orcs/WoMT/Riders of Rohan that most gamers already have/don't feel the need to replace.
This needn't stop you doing your own Tolkien-based work, but providing alternatives to a community that is ready to buy them (just look at the prices people pay for these OOP minis on eBay) would do them a service and make you a fair bit of money (that would then fund production of your 'faithful' minis.
What I am doing will certainly fill in the holes in the GW line.
THAT is part of the reason I began doing this to begin with.
Aside from Mahûd, there are Umbarrim, more troops for Khand, Easterling Chariots (which I have already done, I just need to modify some crew for them - although the Easterling Chariots will be re-done eventually, but that is far down the list).
And for Gondor I will be doing troops for all of the fiefs, starting with the famed Archers of Morthod Vale (sorry, but they would look nothing like either the Rangers of Ithilien/Gondor, or the Perry's Hundred Year's War stuff - which is far too late period), and the troops from Pelargir, Linhir, and far western provinces/fiefs like the Pinnath Gelin and Andrast.
The order in which I chose to do things has more to do with the fact that Tom Meier never freaking finishes a damned line of miniatures, and I wanted to be able to get a complete army of Orcs from the Misty Mountains.
Once those are done, I will be moving on to the Gondorian Troops, and then Dwarves (which I have always wanted an army of, but no one made any miniatures I liked for a full army), and then a bunch of Mid-Third Age stuff that would also work to fill out the Easterlings.
Eventually I will get around to doing more Rohirrim. The GW Rohirrim are probably the only LotR figures that Jackson got close to right. They are just too limited in type to really fill out a complete Éohere. They need more heavy Lance Armed types (Sort of like the Sons of Éorl, but with helmets and lances, in addition to the heavy me lee weapons - take a look at some Goths), more troops with lighter armor, and not everyone carried a bow (the ONE flaw I find with the Weta/GW stuff). But six figures is hardly enough to provide for a complete Éohere, which consisted of three regional groupings of Éotheod/Rohirrim, and three separate classes of warriors in the individual Éoreds.
And, of course, providing figures for Arnor that would allow for a complete army. GW makes, what, three figures for Arnor?
Given that they look rather plain, it would be easier to just provide a complete line of miniatures for Arnor regardless of whether people wish to use the GW figures for Arnor.
Plus there are the figures for Arthedain, Cardolan, and Rhudaur (both Númenóreans, and after the Númenórean families were all killed by the Hill-men of Rhudaur, under the control of Angmar).
Getting the figures done will go much more quickly once I replace my current computer, as I will not be so constrained by the limits of RAM (I currently have to do chain mail by hand, which slows down creation times for figures considerably).
But... The idea isn't to wholly neglect what GW has done, but to provide a base for when they eventually abandon the line.
Paradigm wrote: Still, though, I have no doubt the game will live on, amongst those who already played, but without an easy way to attract new blood, it might be hard to grow. That said, there are still a fair number of folks on forums looking to start up, and people ready to help them out, so we shall see.
I'm more of a scenario player and have come from a historical gaming background where it isn't unusual for one player to select the scenario, set up the terrain, provide the miniatures for both sides and then invite a friend (or friends) to play. This is the way I usually play LOTR/TH and I have a large enough collection (although I am still scrambling right now to pick up a few more things while I can!) to play this way for the rest of my life. I think the tie to the books and movies, and the fans thereof, will be strong enough that I should be able to find willing partners indefinitely.
This does not mean I don't feel for those who want to collect their own armies or play the game using the points-match forces in pick-up games or tournament settings. Heck, if I could count of finding someone else with a LOTR/TH force at my FLGS I'd bring 500 points of miniatures with me for a quick game! I hate that GW has pretty much abandond the game and is slowly allowing it to disappear. I miss the days when they proudly claimed that LOTR was their "third core game" next to 40K and Fantasy. Of course from what I hear, Fantasy is falterning, too, so it should be no surprise they would ignore LOTR.
I just stumbled across this plastic promotional figure done for LOTR War in the North. Looks like it's about the right size for use in Tabletop (suitably rebased/repainted of course).
It is an awesome looking mini... But he needs to leave Middle-earth. World of Warcraft phoned, and said they were missing a Rat-Troll... Maybe this is he?
BeAfraid wrote: Ghengis Khan ... list of historical monsters
Ghengis Khan was a genius, and no more of a monster in his time than any other.
When uniting the tribes of the steppes, those that joined kept their religion (oh my, religious freedom!) and were in fact largely left alone, save for a tax of horses, men, and supplies. Those that resisted were largely destroyed, of course, with horses, women, and children taken (that was their way of things, of course; Ghengis' own mother was kidnapped like this).
His land campaign in China was both political and military, and was the base of a centuries-long empire. Truly, Khan is the only outsider to conquer China, even unto modern history.
Conquered much of the Indian sub-continent, and held it.
After all this, Khan sent diplomats to Persia to conduct trade negotiations. Trade! The man you list as a vile monster was attempting diplomacy! The Persians, however, beheaded the diplomats and sent them back.
It turns out that this made him a tad annoyed. In response, the Persians were given no quarter. Khan destroyed their empire, razed every city. No small feat, either: you think steppes riders (not that his army was only steppes riders by then) enjoyed trekking through modern Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, etc?
And, aside from simple military genius, I'd like to point out:
Unlike Hitler, Caligula, or Stalin, Ghengis Khan did NOT massacre his own people.
Did not preside over a blatantly racist empire; in fact, simply by virtue of having China and India, his empire had over half a dozen ethnicities.
Like Sequoia of the Cherokee, Khan realized that the Mongols needed a written language, ultimately borrowing the Cyrillic alphabet (though others did the bash-to-fit). Mongolia uses this alphabet even still.
Was the man a barbarian, by our ever-so-civilized standards? Most certainly. But a monster? No.
I think you might have missed the context of the reference to Genghis Khan.
The objectivity of whether he was a "monster" is very open to debate, given the status of the world at the time, and what was "common" among the various factions.
But in relation to Middle-earth, and his archetype to Christendom, he is a Monster, subjectively speaking (In the same way that the Monster under your bed is a Monster - it is an object of awe and fear, dreaded, regardless of the objective reality).
I can admit that I don't care that much for LotR, I loved it as a kid but never got to deeper meanings and never cared if those were represented in the films. I like the films especialy designs and mood because I love grimdark and the more horror the better.
That said, the way the trilogy was realised is pretty much standard hollywood trash. It hammers everything into your head, THIS IS BEAUTIFUL NOW look at how wide open everybody's eyes are! THIS IS SAD, everybody's crying in slow motion. Last second saves ad nauseum. Fights are either slow to a crawl or go into chaotic mess of fast cuts where you can't see what's happening. Then there are those really bad Legolas antics, also while as I said I really enjoy the grimdark but it's quite obvious that the B class gore/ horror director never got out of PJ. In general I think that with the kind of money he had and that cast bent on selling it no matter what, he just couldn't do worse though I'm pretty sure he could do much better.
Now there's The Hobbit, it made PJs LotR trilogy apear classy, watching that I was pretty sure it's an attempt at Christopher Tolkien's life. Fun as a blockbuster ofc but man did PJ show his true colors there.
Not to mention that while I don't care for LotR books that much, I still would prefer as accurate version of the book as possible, seems pretty obvious to me that it would get us a better film. There are exceptions ofc ie The Shining but neither PJ is Kubrick nor King is Tolkien heh.
BeAfraid wrote: When you see a film, such as To Kill a Mockingbird you will see a much more straightforward version of this disclaimer:
"The Film Adaptation of.... X"
There, you will see a very straightforward adaptation of a novel or writer's work (Such as 2001: A Space Oddysey).
This is a poor example as the novel and screenplay for 2001 were developed at the same time. Clarke and Kubrik had a difference of opinion and consequently the novel differs from the film in many repects. Note that both were expanded from the original short story "The Sentinel". So in the end there is nothing "straightforward" about this adaptation. This is more often than not the case when adapting from print to film.
When it comes to the lotr movies there is much I love and much I hate. I do believe some designs were spot on in terms of visual feel and how I would imagine certain costumes, weapons and buildings to look. We have to keep in mind that many of these were based on illustrations that lee and howe created, who are official tolkien artists for the books ( so is ted ) and have been for many years. Each person will naturally have their own perceptions of how this or that would look, and while tolkien created illustrations and paintings himself, there is many cases where full descriptions are totally lacking.
For example we know the trolls were green in the books, but we don't know what shade, we don't really know what colors the dwarfs wore, so gw coming up with some color schemes for moria, erebor and durins folk are perfectly ok since we can do the exact same, I actually like the blue gold and silver erebor dwarves gw came up with, I think jacksons dwarves ( which came out later ) are a bit too dark for my tastes, their armor was good and weapons but their color scheme does not really stand out. The perry dwarves that came out first are closer to lee's illustration of them near the end of the hobbit. This axe crap is not really accurate though as they used a lot of swords in the books and these fantasy dwarves are the first ones so all this axe and dwarf stuff after is simply the work of others, not tolkien..likewise they are not stupid or comedy relief, that is something jackson added in, just as conan is not some bonehead austrian, in the books he is quite intelligent. The murin and drar sculpts are also quite in league with dwarves from the book in looks.
The perry twins sauron the necromancer I think is one of the GW line sculpts that really fits with tolkiens middle earth ( this was based on gw's design also not jackson ), along with the plastic wood elves ( minus the potato faces ). Overall I think GW got many of their own created lotr minis correct or as correct as possible with what little description is available. Jackson I think got many costumes right, we need to understand that when tolkien wrote these books, the kinds of designs were very limited in terms of detail and dynamic visuals, things in general were more simple back then and he would have based a lot of armor off real world armor designs which again are limited other than some engraving works on royal armor and such.
I think some designs could have been a bit more in line with some of the books, but the costumes, designs, buildings and so on is not one of the things I would fault jackson for, it's one of the only things I feel the movies did some justice with. My personal gripes with jackson...is like anything hollywood touches based on books, they not only lie or change things for it to be sensational, they also have to inject their worthless political agendas into it, and regardless of what times we are living in, tolkien himself would not have approved of jackson himself nor things he has added to the movies, I am quite certain of that, tolkien was a man who had character and enough of a spine not to bow down to the times, he was horrified by the hippie scum pestering him, along with the modern world nor sympathetic towards the ultra left wing which he was aware of and opposed to with the changes in his own religion ( this can be seen in his letters book ). And jacksons pc crap has no place in tolkiens middle earth nor should that ever be injected into a FANTASY world that has been pre written.
In my sbg games all of my orcs are painted dark with red eyes and my trolls are all green, it's a fantasy world and the pc world can f itself over and over I stay true to the mans descriptions and wipe my arse with the tears of sniveling pc fools.
The hobbit movies are ok for the visuals, but they are horrible more so than the lotr movies for the things he added and outright made up, I agree with how the tolkien estate feels I don't feel everything is negative but much of it is an insult to tolkiens works.
The SBG game GW created and the minis however I feel do not tarnish tolkien himself, he also stated he was fine with people adding to the story later on, that does not make newer things official but there is some room for that, what SBG does especially well is skirmish like battles with unamed heroes, which would have gone one for thousands of years in middle earth and that is what I like to play most of all when it comes down to it, although what if scenarios can be a lot of fun and some historical battles from the books.
