Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The rule system used by the LotR games did for a short time (sadly!) find a great home with Warhammer Historical, where it brought to live the Wild West and whatnot.

I loved lotr when it first came out. Models were reasonably priced and no magazine kept interest giving you new models and scenarios for a great price. Now prices are too high for me to pick up anything new and what I do pick up will be select characters.

In terms of the hobbit films I think they are ok nothing more. I loved the lotr films but the hobbit films feel to drawn out for me with too many scenes that feel like they were designed to be a universal studios ride rather than a scene from a movie.

Haven't seen the final film in the hobbit trilogy though.

Waaargh wrote:
I enjoyed The Hobbit trilogy and am eager for the extended version of BotFA. Extended DoS is good you say? Must watch it then.

Very good. More Beorn, more Laketown, more Dol Guldur and more Mirkwood. The pacing of the first half improves dramatically once you add in the extra stuff; without it I thought it was a little rushed.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I'd rank Hobbit 1-Nothing Happens, Hobbit 2-the Padding, and Hobbit 3-the Last 30 Pages collectively as the second best Hobbit adaptation after this one:

All this is good news Kid Kyoto. The Tolkien Estate was warming to Peter Jackson, now with JRRT spinning in his grave his chances of getting to buy and butcher a license for Silmarillion content is close to zero.
The Hobbit cartoon was good for its time, though the ugly forest elves didnt make sense in Tolkien lore, they looked more twisted than the goblins.

the lotr sbg is a skirmish story based game, and works well in this setting, not even following the story of the fellowship, though that s fun ive played many times,

i wouldnt call it a mass battles game, and the scenarios ive played from helms deep and pellenor have only been sections or scenes rather than the full battle, it would be slow and draining to me.

on the plus side if you dont like the price of the hobbit minis there are loads of lotr minis you can proxy with, ive used dwarf rangers to represent thorins company and a human ranger for bard, it all available to you in the lotr line for however long it lasts,

i am very sad its dwindling and must admit where i live there is only 2-3 people who will play, the rules system is fantastic, i play games from many systems inluding whf and have played 40k and i agree lotr is best in what it does,and

i find the problem is many gamers allow gw to dominate the market for them and are often ignorant of the quality of other games and how much they will enjoy them, a common excuse i hear is "i already spend heaps on warhammer i cant afford to get into another game", most games i play cost me 40-50$au to get into and have spent alil more here and there, whf/40k are well into the hundreds, the sheer lack of interest in playing games other than warhamer is astounding but from what ive seen here there is still a large fan base for lotr which gives me a sigh of releif that it will still continue

as cool as it would be to have a series of films of the silmarilion, they would break them, and the tolkein estate will never sell out.
andwho says you cannot re-enact those scenes with the lotr line

 Paradigm wrote:

Very good. More Beorn, more Laketown, more Dol Guldur and more Mirkwood. The pacing of the first half improves dramatically once you add in the extra stuff; without it I thought it was a little rushed.

R...really? I couldn't stand how boringly slowly that movie went, and I'm a fan of many a glacially slow drama... I can't imagine how more would have helped that movie.

 BrookM wrote:
The rule system used by the LotR games did for a short time (sadly!) find a great home with Warhammer Historical, where it brought to live the Wild West and whatnot.

The LotR system as put out by WarHam Historicals has proved very popular within the historical side of things. There are often articles in Warhames Illustrated where on of the many iterations of that ruleset are used for example. The Legends of the Highseas version often being used for anything from ACW to Napoleonic Skirmishes.

I have it an throughly recommend it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Padre wrote:
But KK's right, couldn't give a feth for the Hobbit stuff.

Don't worry, neither does GW.

In business strategy this is referred to as concentrating on ones "Core inCompetencies".
But I had to amend the definition to properly account for GW.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I'd rank Hobbit 1-Nothing Happens, Hobbit 2-the Padding, and Hobbit 3-the Last 30 Pages collectively as the second best Hobbit adaptation after this one:

All this is good news Kid Kyoto. The Tolkien Estate was warming to Peter Jackson, now with JRRT spinning in his grave his chances of getting to buy and butcher a license for Silmarillion content is close to zero.
The Hobbit cartoon was good for its time, though the ugly forest elves didnt make sense in Tolkien lore, they looked more twisted than the goblins.

Once Christopher Tolkien passes away (which will be soon - he's 90 after all) it won't take long for the estate to licence the Silmarillion to the highest bidder. Perhaps with some kind of creative control clause that the studios will ignore in their usual dodgy-dealing way.

IIRC the Silmarillion was a posthumous book, Tolkein didn't consider it done when he was still alive.

I've never heard anyone say it was a good read and can't imagine someone paying more than a buck-oh-five for it.

Not when there's books like Faferd and Grey Mouser around.

I remeber when GW first grabbed the liscence out from under Mithril to make LOR miniatures. Mithril was pissed and crucified GW as the "Evil Empire", and went on about their business practices.
It was pretty ugly stuff.

I honestly am not surprised the game is failing when they charge a good 190USD for 14 minis.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Very good. More Beorn, more Laketown, more Dol Guldur and more Mirkwood. The pacing of the first half improves dramatically once you add in the extra stuff; without it I thought it was a little rushed.

R...really? I couldn't stand how boringly slowly that movie went, and I'm a fan of many a glacially slow drama... I can't imagine how more would have helped that movie.

I guess it's just a difference in opinion/expectation. I thought the first half hour of the cinema release was far too rushed, can't think of any of the film as slow to be honest. The EE added in so much that I felt was missing from that, including several key bits from the book.

But then I am perfectly happy with 3h+ films and consider the PJ LOTR/Hobbit movies to be just about the most amazing films ever made.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
IIRC the Silmarillion was a posthumous book, Tolkein didn't consider it done when he was still alive.

I've never heard anyone say it was a good read and can't imagine someone paying more than a buck-oh-five for it.

Not when there's books like Faferd and Grey Mouser around.

Oh god I hope you're being ironic. The Silmarillion is fantastic.

There's actually an article in this months Wargames Soldier and Strategy about the I'm pact of Warhammer on Historicals. It's quite interesting but incorrectly indicates the Warhammer system being used for the plethora of Warhammer Historicals systems that actually used te LotRs system.

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Very good. More Beorn, more Laketown, more Dol Guldur and more Mirkwood. The pacing of the first half improves dramatically once you add in the extra stuff; without it I thought it was a little rushed.

R...really? I couldn't stand how boringly slowly that movie went, and I'm a fan of many a glacially slow drama... I can't imagine how more would have helped that movie.

Surely you are joking. To me it seems that PJ finds the dialougue parts of both LotR and the Hobbit so boing that he has to spice it up with weapons and/or fights and chase scenes. The best film of all of them was Fellowship of the Ring but even there PJ managed to waste the council at Elrond's and turn it into a sort of introduction to RPG clichés ("I'm a dwarf, therefore I hate elves", "I'm an elf, therefore all dwarves are brutes").

I was all astonishment during The Desolation of Smaug since it seemed like the script team had gotten their hands on a map of Middle Earth and a list of names of people along the route of the fellowship - that was all they got. They filled in all the gaps with silly action scenes and totally over the top chases that lasted for far too long. This ultimately made them wast wonderful scenes from the book. Like when they trick Beorn to let them stay, or when Bilbo talks to Smaug (why would Smaug let himself act like some rabbid dog, chasing the dwarves around the mountain btw!?).

The only good thing about the Hobbit movies (granted I haven't watched the last one) and the LotR movies is the scenery. Really cool places that really gets your imagination going!

And this alone, the chance to make excellent scenery, could make me play these games, but I know of no-one else that plays them and the minis aren't really all that great looking.

As movies go, I won't be watching them again any time soon. To me they are little more than perfect examples of how you use action scenes to dumb down and get in the way of good stories.

For all the people who are complaining about what Peter Jackson did, all I want to see is you do a better job and make the millions/billions he did. No matter how bad he did, I am sure he did the job and made the millions/billions of dollars doing a bad job or a crap job as some of you guys say.

Now we can say GW did a bad job on how they handled The Hobbit and not make the millions. Unlike PJ who has done a bad job as people say but still made millions GW did a bad job and not make millions. Now there is something we can say that is relevant to this thread instead of how bad the movies are. So with GW releasing the rules for free and nobody cares, is because for me, it's too little too late. Now if the prices were Lord of the Rings prices and the same quantity in the box then I would come back. Now with 1/2 the content and 1/3 of the price (which translates to a price increase) is why I don't care anymore. Rules that should have been in the small rule book in the box set in the beginning is another reason why I left. I hated being nickled and dime to death, or more like $50 and $100 to death.

 Bonesnapper wrote:

 spiralingcadaver wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

Very good. More Beorn, more Laketown, more Dol Guldur and more Mirkwood. The pacing of the first half improves dramatically once you add in the extra stuff; without it I thought it was a little rushed.

R...really? I couldn't stand how boringly slowly that movie went, and I'm a fan of many a glacially slow drama... I can't imagine how more would have helped that movie.

Surely you are joking. To me it seems that PJ finds the dialougue parts of both LotR and the Hobbit so boing that he has to spice it up with weapons and/or fights and chase scenes. The best film of all of them was Fellowship of the Ring but even there PJ managed to waste the council at Elrond's and turn it into a sort of introduction to RPG clichés ("I'm a dwarf, therefore I hate elves", "I'm an elf, therefore all dwarves are brutes").

I was all astonishment during The Desolation of Smaug since it seemed like the script team had gotten their hands on a map of Middle Earth and a list of names of people along the route of the fellowship - that was all they got. They filled in all the gaps with silly action scenes and totally over the top chases that lasted for far too long. This ultimately made them wast wonderful scenes from the book. Like when they trick Beorn to let them stay, or when Bilbo talks to Smaug (why would Smaug let himself act like some rabbid dog, chasing the dwarves around the mountain btw!?).

The only good thing about the Hobbit movies (granted I haven't watched the last one) and the LotR movies is the scenery. Really cool places that really gets your imagination going!

And this alone, the chance to make excellent scenery, could make me play these games, but I know of no-one else that plays them and the minis aren't really all that great looking.

As movies go, I won't be watching them again any time soon. To me they are little more than perfect examples of how you use action scenes to dumb down and get in the way of good stories.

Well, I don't think I could disagree more with any of that, but at the end of the day it's all opinion. I'm far more interested in seeing a representation of the setting of Middle Earth (which all the films do spectacularly, I think) than a word-for-word retelling of the books, and barring the removal of the Scouring of the Shire in RotK, there's not a single addition, change or ommission that detracts from the film in my mind.

I don't think there ever has been, or ever will be for a few decades (if ever) a series of films that will eclipse the epicness, scale, visual spectacle or excellent storytelling of the Middle Earth saga.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Was there something about a dropping a whole statue of molten gold on Benedict? Or was I just dreaming?

I remember a hawt redhead. That I do remember.

And then CumberSmaug got up and flew away as if nothing happened, assuring the entire audience that, yes, the last 20 minutes of screen time were entirely without point or purpose.

Davor wrote:
For all the people who are complaining about what Peter Jackson did, all I want to see is you do a better job and make the millions/billions he did. No matter how bad he did, I am sure he did the job and made the millions/billions of dollars doing a bad job or a crap job as some of you guys say.

That's a fallacious argument. You don't need to direct a Hollywood blockbuster in order to have a valid opinion on the quality of a film.

Hell, if that were the case then you might as well shut down this and every other thread on the forum as precious few of us are going to have the authority to speak about pretty much anything.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.

No, not at all actually. Rick Priestly pitched the whole concept to GW before the company even approached New Line about a license, including doing it in a different scale which would allow more true-to-scale proportions, and use less material for a cheaper product.

Why do you think GW forced Priestly out of the design studio? GW got pissed about LotR when the bubble burst, and blamed it on Priestly, quite flagrantly ignoring the fact that it was a huge, unprecedentedly successful money earner for the company that GW eventually bungled with poor support after the hype from Return of the King died down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bonesnapper wrote:
The best film of all of them was Fellowship of the Ring but even there PJ managed to waste the council at Elrond's and turn it into a sort of introduction to RPG clichés ("I'm a dwarf, therefore I hate elves", "I'm an elf, therefore all dwarves are brutes").

Fellowship really was the best of them. It is, on the whole, a very well-constructed film. For example, if you follow the final sequence shot for shot, the fellowship peels away from Frodo in reverse order. First goes Boromir (Rivendell), then goes Aragorn (Bree), then Merry and Pippin (road to Bree), then finally Sam (Hobbiton). The film has a wonderful climax, and the narrative is resolved nicely and satisfyingly while leaving itself open to the sequel. Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas running off to "hunt some orc" is almost an homage to Darth Vader gaining control over his TIE and flying off at the end of A New Hope.

It's a darn good movie.

That screenshot is very much like the view of 'An Unexpected Party' in my mind's eye since I was about 11 or 12. Only Bilbo was a bit more... Kenneth Connor, maybe, rather than podling.

Azazelx wrote:Once Christopher Tolkien passes away (which will be soon - he's 90 after all) it won't take long for the estate to licence the Silmarillion to the highest bidder. Perhaps with some kind of creative control clause that the studios will ignore in their usual dodgy-dealing way.

No! No! Shut up! Why do you say these things? Just stop... stop it...

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
I've never heard anyone say it was a good read and can't imagine someone paying more than a buck-oh-five for it.

You need to talk to more than a dozen people.

Not when there's books like Faferd and Grey Mouser around.

Fafhrd. And Pfff(hrd). Turin Turambar would 'ave 'em.

notprop wrote:There's actually an article in this months Wargames Soldier and Strategy about the I'm pact of Warhammer on Historicals. It's quite interesting but incorrectly indicates the Warhammer system being used for the plethora of Warhammer Historicals systems that actually used te LotRs system.

Now I enjoy historical games myself, but a lot of historical gamers are still scratching their heads and harrumphing over this 'goblins and wizards' fad the kids go for. Expecting them to be able to distinguish between fantasy gaming systems is like expecting your octogenarian grandad to distinguish between an X-Station and a Playbox.

Davor wrote:For all the people who are complaining about what Peter Jackson did, all I want to see is you do a better job and make the millions/billions he did. No matter how bad he did, I am sure he did the job and made the millions/billions of dollars doing a bad job or a crap job as some of you guys say.

What Sidstyler said. Also, talk to the studios. Give me a budget. All I gotta do is have a tiny bit of respect for characters and themes, a lack of a fetish for interminable chase scenes, a dearth of cringeworthy americanisms, and at least half an inkling of what the word 'subtlety' means.

People rave about PJ's success: they seem to forget that his biggest successes were already hugely popular, iconic stories, and that otherwise he's most famous for cheap, garbled splatterhouse flicks with sumatran rat-monkeys.

weeble1000 wrote:Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas running off to "hunt some orc" is almost an homage to Darth Vader gaining control over his TIE and flying off at the end of A New Hope.

No! No! Shut up! Why do you say these things? Just stop... stop it...

Some of you people seem to hate The Hobbit movies so much that you're now willing to say that the LOTR films were terrible.

Christ... talk about Tall Poppy Syndrome.

The LOTR films have some problems, but I don't think people were saying they were terrible. Lay off the hyperbole.

I love the LOTR movies but I can admit that they have some pretty deep flaws, especially the second and third movies.

 Da Boss wrote:
The LOTR films have some problems, but I don't think people were saying they were terrible. Lay off the hyperbole.

I love the LOTR movies but I can admit that they have some pretty deep flaws, especially the second and third movies.

+1. I'm not quite so enthusiastic but basically the same opinion- I think the LotR movies were okay (but overrated). I actually respect them a lot more after seeing the Hobbit movies, because of how much worse I felt the Hobbit ones were and I'm glad LotR didn't get the same poor treatment.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Some of you people seem to hate The Hobbit movies so much that you're now willing to say that the LOTR films were terrible.

I said they were terrible before it was cool.

Nerdrage has never been cool.

Nor dodging the point with lazy stereotypes.

If previous fans are now saying the LotR movies were not great, I can only imagine the dazzle is wearing off like a henna tattoo, and The Hobbit is the cheese grater helping the process along. Took a while - see how quick it wore off King Kong, by comparison.

weeble1000 wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.

No, not at all actually. Rick Priestly pitched the whole concept to GW before the company even approached New Line about a license, including doing it in a different scale which would allow more true-to-scale proportions, and use less material for a cheaper product.

Why do you think GW forced Priestly out of the design studio? GW got pissed about LotR when the bubble burst, and blamed it on Priestly, quite flagrantly ignoring the fact that it was a huge, unprecedentedly successful money earner for the company that GW eventually bungled with poor support after the hype from Return of the King died down.

<citation needed>

 Azazelx wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
New Line had GW make the game in a different scale specifically for that reason. So you could not crossover bits/models from LotR to WHFB.

No, not at all actually. Rick Priestly pitched the whole concept to GW before the company even approached New Line about a license, including doing it in a different scale which would allow more true-to-scale proportions, and use less material for a cheaper product.

Why do you think GW forced Priestly out of the design studio? GW got pissed about LotR when the bubble burst, and blamed it on Priestly, quite flagrantly ignoring the fact that it was a huge, unprecedentedly successful money earner for the company that GW eventually bungled with poor support after the hype from Return of the King died down.

<citation needed>

The horse's mouth. I can't direct you to any documentary evidence, but in almost 1900 posts, when have I lied?