Has GW lost their mind?

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.

**Backfire**

azreal13 wrote:

I will cut a little slack on the assumption that English isn't your first language, but for future reference, addressing someone's comments with "Duh! " is going to generally illicit and aggressively belligerent response. Don't do it.

I consider LotR to be largely a children's book, certainly most people I know who read it first read it as a child, or a young adult at least.

Lots of kids also read Tom Clancy or Jane Austin, I don't consider them children's books either.

**insaniak**

Backfire wrote:
That's the difference between Tolkien and someone like David Eddings: as a writer, Eddings was no worse (better, if anything) but his worlds and characters were crude cardboard cutouts thought up in five minutes, whilst Tolkien spent years just documenting vocal changes between Quenya and Sindar.

Uh, Eddings spent several years developing the setting for the Belgariad. It was a hge, complex tapestry of different nations, all with their own identities and histories. His characters, though, were indeed just cardboard cutouts...

The big problem with Eddings wasn't the lack of background, it was his belief that the only way to be a successful fantasy writer was to essentially re-write the Lord of the Rings in a different setting. And so he did. And then he did it again. And again. And again. And then he combined a few of the characters, and did it again in a single book. And then cam the Elder Gods... and I have no idea what he was thinking by that point...

To be fair, I enjoyed the hell out of Eddings as a kid... But these days, I re-read the Belgariad and stop there before it all gets too painfully repetitive.

**Azreal13**

Backfire wrote:

Lots of kids also read Tom Clancy or Jane Austin, I don't consider them children's books either.

Ok. So what's your point?

There is a difference between books for children and books that children read?

No argument here.

The intended audience really has no bearing on how good or bad a work is, only how appropriate.

**Backfire**

insaniak wrote:
Backfire wrote:
That's the difference between Tolkien and someone like David Eddings: as a writer, Eddings was no worse (better, if anything) but his worlds and characters were crude cardboard cutouts thought up in five minutes, whilst Tolkien spent years just documenting vocal changes between Quenya and Sindar.

Uh, Eddings spent several years developing the setting for the Belgariad. It was a hge, complex tapestry of different nations, all with their own identities and histories. His characters, though, were indeed just cardboard cutouts...

The big problem with Eddings wasn't the lack of background, it was his belief that the only way to be a successful fantasy writer was to essentially re-write the Lord of the Rings in a different setting. And so he did. And then he did it again. And again. And again. And then he combined a few of the characters, and did it again in a single book. And then cam the Elder Gods... and I have no idea what he was thinking by that point...

To be fair, I enjoyed the hell out of Eddings as a kid... But these days, I re-read the Belgariad and stop there before it all gets too painfully repetitive.

Eddings might have claimed to have spent years developing world for the Belgariad but if he did, I'm left wondering to what exactly he used his time: his world has almost no history, with nearly all nations staying the same for thousands of years and their "nationalistic characteristics" are very stereotypic and most people today would likely consider them racist. In fairness though, admittably his first world shows at least some inspiration and attempt compared to really boring efforts for Elenium and Althalus. IIRC Eddings was big fan of Medieval knight stories, and even claimed it's impossible to write fantasy without reading those stories first. I think I disagree with that.

I reread Belgariad some years ago to see if it had still stood test of time and I admit enjoying it second time around too. He was genuinely quite good writer, it's unfortunate he had to tarnish his legacy by cashing it out rewriting the same story over & over again. Though, I give him bonus points for coming up with actual plot devices to justify his copypasting. Most other writers don't bother.

**Testify**

Presumably Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde are also for children?

**Marrak**

...soooooo getting off topic much? I'll just add this before getting drawn into a debate that cannot be won by either side.

Anyway, Tolkien's works were (admitted by the author) a huge bloated thing that he was positive no one, save a select few, would like. Tolkien also was an amateur, not professional writer. He did things no professional would have dared, and any modern publisher would have a heart attack over. His work is a living, breathing, detail-oriented work that wasn't edited but completely re-written each time Tolkien decided to change something. It is a complete mess for pacing, plot, and character development for many important characters that is only expanded upon and explained in the appendices. Hell, the publisher had to convince Tolkien to split the thing into 3 books, instead of the one volume he started with, simply because no one could rationally think of how to bind something that massive at the time.

Yet for all that, the works were beloved, well received. Are there problems? Yes. There are scores of scenes where nothing happens to advance the plot, and even more sections of writing that seem completely out of place for the actions happening at the times. But we must keep in mind that the books were in fact written in a far different time and place than the current modern form of written works, and were written (or in some cases pieced together by his son *eyes the Silmarillion shiftily*) because Tolkien and C.S. Lewis realized that they were going to have to write the kinds of books they wanted to read, because no on else had or was. Despite the numerous problems, I enjoy them, even if it takes me a while to work my way through it, and there is no denying the effect they have had on the entire genre of Fantasy... primarily because before Tolkien, for all intent and purposes the genre was non-existent.

Yeah, by modern standards (and even some of the times) the books are poorly written. No surprise, but what they have done for the genre is unmistakable, and the world itself captured the imaginations of countless readers, critics, and fans alike.

**Azreal13**

Testify wrote:
Presumably Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde are also for children?

If the kids round you are reading Wilde and Shakespeare voluntarily, I'd be very surprised.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides, I drew a distinction between books for children and books children read.

The two don't necessarily overlap.

**The Foot**

Marrak wrote:
...soooooo getting off topic much?

It would seem. So assuming more young 'uns are going to want this game than adult gamers, what do you guys think this would do for the game? Let's say that, for sanity's sake, they are level headed enough to not become shrieking little monsters. It might actually make a good way to get kids into the hobby without chucking a rule book to them that doubles as a club because it's fairly hefty. Does anyone see this as a good thing?

**Backfire**

azreal13 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

Lots of kids also read Tom Clancy or Jane Austin, I don't consider them children's books either.

Ok. So what's your point?

There is a difference between books for children and books that children read?

No argument here.

The intended audience really has no bearing on how good or bad a work is, only how appropriate.

Of course it has bearing, if you compromise your writing based on age or taste of your expected readership. I don't blame any writers doing that, mind you (Isaac Asimov flat out said that he toned his writing style "for worse" to gain wider audience) but it might prove a limitation for some readers. I've only read first book of Narnia, and while I like the imagery, the writing is just way too sparse and simplistic for my taste. Better example might be LeGuin's Earthsea which does give out a feeling of depth & history, just like Tolkien, and which are also much more economically written. I liked those books both as a child and adult.

**Testify**

azreal13 wrote:

If the kids round you are reading Wilde and Shakespeare voluntarily, I'd be very surprised.

People who're into English get into Shakespeare at a young age. People who're into fantasy get into Tolkein at a young age.

Just because an author is deemed so brilliant so as to make him the first port of call in a field, doesn't mean it's "for children". You can't possibly compare Rowling to Tolkein for example, or Pullman (who's awesome btw, but definitely adolescent).

**Azreal13**

Tolkien is not considered brilliant by anybody with any sound literary background. Ubiquitous, yes, brilliant? Not so much.

Clearly you think he represents some sort of gold standard to you, either because you really think so or because of emperors new clothes syndrome. Either way, that's your right, but you aren't going to convince me that the books have any real worth as literature. Which doesn't mean they're worthless before you jump all over that.

If you think they count as grown up books too, then fine, but the fact that he tells the stories from the perspective of the hobbits, who are inherently child like in aspect, a trait common in most children's books, alongside the very carefully defined goodies and baddies and almost total absence of grey morality, and you have a pretty good paradigm of a children's story.

IMHO

**Bolognesus**

azreal13 wrote:
...alongside the very carefully defined goodies and baddies and almost total absence of grey morality, and you have a pretty good paradigm of a children's story.

IMHO

...and of pretty much *any* story before a certain point in time, for that matter. Most epics have a distinct lack of grey areas, clear protagonists and what have you; still, would you say Virgil wrote childrens' stories?

**Harriticus**

LOTR is well written and Tolkein was a brilliantly talented author and linguistic mind.

That being said, I didn't like the LOTR books at all. They're boring, tedious, the characters lack development, and too much time is wasted on singing/poetry. The Peter Jackson movies introduced a real sense of suspense and life into the characters.

**martin74**

LOTR was a brilliant piece of work, no question there.

Today, at the FLGS, saw all that great and new Hobit stuff still sitting on the shelf where it was when it was first put out. No one came in looking for it, gamer or collector. No one really looked at it. no one picked up the box to look at it. Great stuff, overpriced stuff.

**Backfire**

Harriticus wrote:
LOTR is well written and Tolkein was a brilliantly talented author and linguistic mind.

That being said, I didn't like the LOTR books at all. They're boring, tedious, the characters lack development, and too much time is wasted on singing/poetry. The Peter Jackson movies introduced a real sense of suspense and life into the characters.

No, what Jackson did is that he "Hollywoodized" the characters, so moviegoers would see familiar stereotypes. This was particularly evident in character of Aragorn. However, there are no strict "rules" how to write good characters, and it's myth that character development in the sense that character grows and evolves during the span of the story is a necessity. Only poor, unoriginal writers limit themselves with such paradigms.

LotR is not perfect (particularly Frodo's journey gets pretty tedious at times and Tolkien himself admitted he wasn't as excited writing that part of the story) but within its own genre (high fantasy) it's still the gold standard, that is extremely obvious.

What I'm worried about the Hobbit movies is that Jackson gives them all-out "epic" treatment like he did with RotK. But Hobbit is not such an epic story and going all-out massive, epic and ethereal is not going to suit the settings or characters.

**Alkasyn**

montka wrote:
Some observations:

Many have mentioned the children's market.

Consider though that children are attracted to bright colors. I think that the brown and off white characters we see here will fail to capture their imagination as much as the vivid greens, reds, blues and whites of the former LOTR sets.

Sadly many people have lost their jobs or taken pay cuts due to the recession. Factor in also the increase in fuel prices. Factor in the increased cost of food, which will rise next year again in the UK as Tesco has forewarned a price rise.
So overall there will be less families and individuals with the capital to invest in playing the game. This could have a severe effect on the number of gaming groups who play the game, which in turn reduces the hype and thus lowers sales.

Poor sales would affect the share value of games workshop. I remember being told that the game 'GorkaMorka' nearly sunk Games Workshop in the 90s because of how much it cost to publish and how few copies they sold.
Could the Hobbit have consequences this serious for their company? It certainly wouldn't surprise me.

I feel I might be starting to understand those who say any Games Workshop product is value for money though. Am I right in saying that you have never paid rent, gas or food bills in your entire life and still live with your mother?
And that, consequently, 100% of all income is to be spent on toys? Games Workshop is piratically guaranteed the pocket money of this sector of the gaming world, so long as the products have a high entertainment value.
It may be that Games Workshop is able to survive indefinitely by targeting this sector of the market. I would say however that because they have priced their products so highly, they have little room for manouvre if the cost of living for
the average family keeps increasing - they will inevitably lose customers as children's parents decide to put more money away for holidays, clothing and other necessities. GW will be unable to lower the price of their models, because this
would undermine investor confidence, and the value of the company would plummet. So it looks as if they can only shrink and stagnate while many of their customers concentrate on other priorities.

In brief it seems this product has little appeal to the mature gamer who is, through the miracle of the internet, able to access products from numerous competitors, and that its appeal to children may be limited.

If the product is not well received by gamers this will adversely affect Games Workshop's revenues. I can only imagine what their reaction to this might be: another price hike!

I agree with this, especially with the "Value for money" part. GW models are already past the threshold I consider good value for my money Some of the models would cost a friend of mine his WEEKLY pay. I have no doubt that GW is driving away potential customers by too high prices.

**ExNoctemNacimur**

12thRonin wrote:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
You must be joking. There's more to Middle-Earth than the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit. There's the stories of the First Age that are amazingly developed. Let's take George Lucas - he didn't develop the Star Wars world by himself, he got the help of a team of writers, producers and things like that. Meanwhile, Tolkien developed his world by himself in the trenches of France during the First World War.

Neither did Tolkien then, and it wasn't all done during WW1. He started the Silmarillion there but The Hobbit wasn't written until the 1930's and LotR during the late 30's- late 40's. He had help from his son picking up where he left off not to mention all the editors along the way. Most of what he wrote was derived from Biblical, Arthurian, Norse and Celtic Mythology so it's not that original at all then either. None of those was the point you asked about though since you wanted to know what other authors created their own worlds as detailed as Middle Earth. Nice deflection attempt though. You might want to try an advanced course in Tolkien literature in college though to help round out your knowledge.

Hell, he even created many different languages for use in his works. These languages can even be spoken! Half of those writers that you mentioned can trace the origin of their works to Tolkien as well.

Klingon can be spoken too. So what?

Pratchett is really the only one who traces back to Tolkien but he unabashedly admits he drew inspiration from LotR.

1. If you argue it like that, then you could say for example that Bathory wasn't that original because all the stuff he wrote was lifted from Thrash Metal or that Black Flag really was just the Ramones but louder. Nothing is original with arguments like that.
2. If I knew that I wasn't throwing money away, I would do a Tolkien literature course.
3. Also using one of your arguments and using it for another thing, 2nd wave black metal was created by Euronymous from Mayhem. But since Euronymous wasn't the only member in Mayhem at the time, then the 2nd wave cannot have been started by him. Yes, I do know about his son, but did he have such a major part in the creation of the world as some of Lucas' writers?
4. Klingon is one language developed by a team of people. Sindarin, the Black Speech, Numenorean etc. were all created by a single man with maybe a bit of external help.

**Kroothawk**

Tolkien? Pratchett? Klingons? Are two pages of wild off topic posts not enough?

**Lint**

May have been mentioned before but has anybody else seen that Jackson is making "The Hobbit" into THREE SEPERATE MOVIES! I can't think of a more discouraging example of squeezing every last drop of money out of a franchise. I expect GW to follow suit and bum-frack their customers for every dime they can.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/the-hobbit-movies-3_n_1730218.html

**Grimtuff**

Lint wrote:
May have been mentioned before but has anybody else seen that Jackson is making "The Hobbit" into THREE SEPERATE MOVIES! I can't think of a more discouraging example of squeezing every last drop of money out of a franchise. I expect GW to follow suit and bum-frack their customers for every dime they can.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/the-hobbit-movies-3_n_1730218.html

Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.

Though I am disappointed on the sub headings. We should have gone with "The Hobbit: There", "The Hobbit: And" and "The Hobbit: Back Again" for silly Abbot and Costello shenanigans with the second film when trying to buy a ticket for it.

**Lint**

Grimtuff wrote:

Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.

True story, I am just now hearing this. I heard it was going to be 2 movies and thought to myself "Wow they're really taking that horse for a ride." But yeah, three movies is incredibly stupid imho. TRotK could've maybe been 2 movies, following the recent trend ala Harry Potter and Twilight grand finales, but I just don't see how you can stretch the Hobbit into 3 fething movies.

That's where GW gets the balls to upcharge all the Hobbit merch, they're just tagging along with Jackson and the film producers.

**nkelsch**

Lint wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:

Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.

True story, I am just now hearing this. I heard it was going to be 2 movies and thought to myself "Wow they're really taking that horse for a ride." But yeah, three movies is incredibly stupid imho. TRotK could've maybe been 2 movies, following the recent trend ala Harry Potter and Twilight grand finales, but I just don't see how you can stretch the Hobbit into 3 fething movies.

That's where GW gets the balls to upcharge all the Hobbit merch, they're just tagging along with Jackson and the film producers.

They are going to make up a bunch of stuff for the battle of five armies, I also heard the 3rd movie was going to be a 'cleanup' to LotR as LotR is 7 books and they basically totally left out the 7th book where Saurman goes and wrecks up the shire (even though they explicitly showed it in Frodo's vision with galadriel). I heard they may be filming that part as a way to close out the story so who knows.

**gorgon**

Backfire wrote:
12thRonin wrote:
ExNoctemNacimur wrote:
Well, I have to disagree with you guys about the Tolkien bit. I'd like you to give me one example of a single author who had created such a developed world. And another who captivated the world with his writing in the same way Tolkien did, and spawned so many works similar to his.

CS Lewis, Frank Herbert, Terry Pratchett, George Lucas, Gene Roddenberry, Larry Niven, George R.R. Martin, Issac Asimov, Arther C. Clarke, Robert Jordan just for a few off the top of my head. Hell even throw L. Ron Hubbard in the mix (he started a religion based off his fiction).

Ah hah hah. Most of those writers never did anything even remotely similar to depth of Tolkien's world.

How much time did Tolkien spend developing the ecology of Middle-Earth? How about politics? Technology?

Tolkien is likely unmatched in his treatment of his world's history and languages...I have no problem giving you that point. But note that those things also have little to no importance about whether the LotR itself is great literature or not.

**weeble1000**

Backfire wrote:

What I'm worried about the Hobbit movies is that Jackson gives them all-out "epic" treatment like he did with RotK. But Hobbit is not such an epic story and going all-out massive, epic and ethereal is not going to suit the settings or characters.

Yep. This is a significant concern for me as well. The Hobbit could easily be a trim film with a tight narrative. The story is about Bilbo, and you can toss a lot of the Hobbit that is not necessary to tell that story. The Hobbit is a journey of self-discovery in which Bilbo learns to believe in himself and comes to appreciate his agency in the world around him; essentially a coming of age tale geared towards a young reader. Most of the characters are rather flat and serve to highlight the ways in which Bilbo is growing and developing. You don't need every conflict in the book to tell that story, and you certainly don't need to develop Gandalf and the White Council.

Principally, the characters other than Bilbo are driven by greed. So too is Bilbo to a certain degree, but he matures and learns to overcome the desire for wealth and power.

Dwarves - they want GOLD (and vengeance)
Elves - they want GOLD (and a little vengeance)
Men - they want GOLD (and a slice of that vengeance too)

The characters are merely backdrops for Bilbo and all and sundry get their comeuppance for their hubris, except for Bilbo, who returns home rich and happy. Is there something more going on behind the core narrative? Absolutely. It is all very interesting and it makes the world rich. Does it need to be in the movie? Absolutely not.

And to be on topic, do we need a bunch of minis for all of it? Absolutely not.

**montka**

Alkasyn wrote:

I agree with this.

Someone read my post!

**warriorpriest**

montka wrote:
Alkasyn wrote:

I agree with this.

Someone read my post!

ok I just read it...and???

On topic...... Anyone that pays retail price on this stuff needs their heads looked at. Plain and simple. As far as the other off topic stuff......

Well I am staying out all but one and that is to point out klingon is actually a mix of real languages IIRC.

**-Loki-**

Lint wrote:
Grimtuff wrote:

Dude, where have you been for the last 6 months? This has been common knowledge for a while.

True story, I am just now hearing this. I heard it was going to be 2 movies and thought to myself "Wow they're really taking that horse for a ride." But yeah, three movies is incredibly stupid imho. TRotK could've maybe been 2 movies, following the recent trend ala Harry Potter and Twilight grand finales, but I just don't see how you can stretch the Hobbit into 3 fething movies.

That's where GW gets the balls to upcharge all the Hobbit merch, they're just tagging along with Jackson and the film producers.

Apparently they're using a lot of stuff Tolkein wrote after the Hobbit was published (and I assume republished to tie into LotR better). Stuff like, say, Gandalf rides off, then comes back. The story will use notes Tolkein wrote to follow these additional paths and stretch the story out.

**Fafnir**

It still worries me.

I thought the Hobbit was a far superior story simply because it was so much more concise and had much better pacing. It was a simple story with characters that were actually of some interest.
Lord of the Rings was boring as hell, and an absolute chore to read. The movies I view as better stories because they took the solid framework and got rid of all the extra fluff that bogged the books down so much. The Hobbit looks to be doing the exact opposite.

**-Loki-**

I'm not saying it's a great idea (for the same reasons you said), just saying they're not just making stuff up (for the most part).

Though I find LotR to be a chore to watch in a lot of places as well (mostly in RotK with the Frodo sections).

**Fafnir**

Probably because Frodo approaches Bella Swan levels of uselessness.

He's just so easy to hate on.