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.

nkelsch wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

nkelsch wrote:

 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.

Would be kinda hard to do the Scouring with Saruman having died at Isengard in RotK.

He is a maiar just like gandalf and Sauron. Gandalf died too,

If they wanted to, a misleading death isn't gonna stop them or even bother movie-goers...

Yes, but Gandalf was sent back because his job wasn't done, he didn't come back because it was some innate thing maiar do. Sauron only keeps coming back because his existence is tied to the One Ring, it's implicitly stated he died a "true death" once the ring was destroyed. IIRC, the books hint that Saruman would be punished if he died since he'd turned from his mission against Sauron. I believe there's some mention of his spirit dissolving, but that may be something that Tom Shippey mentioned about the character.

 angel of ecstasy wrote:
Okay, we get it. Tolkien isn't underground enough for the pretentious internet crowd. Back on topic we go. Please?

Post something inflammatory that is likely to provoke a reaction in an appeal to get back on topic.

Good plan, let me know how it turns out.

FWIW It's nothing to do with any pretention or hipster thinking. Most people with a solid background in writing and literature seem to agree that the books aren't technically that good, nobody seems to think they aren't massively influential.

Where are the mods when you need them?

I was always a massive Tolkien fan when i was younger, I used to love how detailed everything was and really appreciated the depth of the world he described and the appropriateness of the words he used to do so.
I started to read it again more recently and it just seemed to drag on, maybe it was because i know what was going to happen or maybe its because it really isn't as good as I thought it was.

I'd say the "New" Fellowship of the ring which is literally 9 small plastic models for half the cost it used to be to get that and 30 goblins and scenery, that, is GW gone mad. Sheesh.

I think that they know it will be limited in sales so they gave us the price that everything else will increase to this summer with their yearly price increase. I was more blown away by the 45$ white council which includes a hearty 4 figs. 100$ Landraiders here come, 50$ 5 man troop boxes coming soon!!

I personally had some interest in the Hobbit but now I will not be participating in making this game a success.

Some people have suggested that GW would like to bring UK and US pricing up into line with Australia, seeing as people apparently buy enough there to keep the shops open. Maybe the Hobbit tests these prices in the UK, and they will start bringing up the fantasy and 40K prices if the Hobbit sells. That said, the Australian Hobbit prices are still hugely marked up as compared to the rest of the world so there doesn't seem to be a levelling off in prices.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Some people have suggested that GW would like to bring UK and US pricing up into line with Australia, seeing as people apparently buy enough there to keep the shops open.

Given how quickly games stores here come and go, that seems unlikely.

Once upon a time, Oz was GW's most profitable market. That time is long, long gone.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Some people have suggested that GW would like to bring UK and US pricing up into line with Australia, seeing as people apparently buy enough there to keep the shops open. Maybe the Hobbit tests these prices in the UK, and they will start bringing up the fantasy and 40K prices if the Hobbit sells. That said, the Australian Hobbit prices are still hugely marked up as compared to the rest of the world so there doesn't seem to be a levelling off in prices.

I don't know about UK prices, but as far as the US is concerned, it'd be a bit rough on the yanks to bring their pricing in line with Oz pricing because with the exchange rate as it is, the US is a significantly cheaper place to live and Americans earn significantly less than Australians. Making the prices the same would mean Americans pay far more relative to their wages. Of course, I'd like to see Australian prices come down to US prices

Isn't GWAU losing money for the second year running?

 Asuryan wrote:
$1240 for the "ultimate bundle"...

"Place your orders today and relax knowing that you're getting absolutely everything in one go."

Relax knowing once you paint everything 12 months later you might find someone who will want to play the game too! Then shamble back off to 40k.

Did I ever tell you I have, like, 3 LOTR armies and the complete Fellowship? Want to help me paint them! .....no......ummmm....no probs....I guess

Seriously though, they haven't lost their minds, because people will buy it and they will earn money from it. "Losing their minds" would be not taking the opportunity to bleed as much money out of people as possible, when they have a prime opportunity to do so. I just wish it didn't take up so many pages in WD

Just going off the title, GW lost their mind years ago. And somehow, people keep buying their stuff. I'm glad I was finally able to pull myself away from it. I'm not sure I can stay gone though, if the upcoming Daemon books and Black Templar WD codex are good though.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
... and Americans earn significantly less than Australians.

Not actually entirely true.

The average minimum wage in Australia is higher... but the median household income is lower. Americans get paid less at minimum wage (on paper at least, we don't get tips in Oz in the same way as the US), but salaried professionals generally get paid more, going by the studies I've read.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Just going off the title, GW lost their mind years ago.

Case in point... Bretonnian Questing Knights. The horses are plastic KotR models. Only the riders, weapons, banner, and a few other bits are finecast. That's not a whole lot of resin in the box. So, anyone care to explain how they arrived at this price point?

 Breotan wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Just going off the title, GW lost their mind years ago.

Case in point... Bretonnian Questing Knights. The horses are plastic KotR models. Only the riders, weapons, banner, and a few other bits are finecast. That's not a whole lot of resin in the box. So, anyone care to explain how they arrived at this price point?

At least they're not all resin.

 Breotan wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Just going off the title, GW lost their mind years ago.

Case in point... Bretonnian Questing Knights. The horses are plastic KotR models. Only the riders, weapons, banner, and a few other bits are finecast. That's not a whole lot of resin in the box. So, anyone care to explain how they arrived at this price point?

See, here's where I reject your premise.

You're starting from the viewpoint that fincast resin in some way justifies the higher price point of a set.

That is, IMO a very false assumption. Remember that hobby resin of any sort is notably cheaper than metal, and that after switching to a cheaper material, GW raised the price on you. Remember also that GW was (before finecast) already notably more expensive than almost any other miniature company.

In answer to your question though, they arrived at this price point, because Ansel and the board wanted another dividend cut and a they figured (probably correctly, for now...) that it was a price the market could bear. It has nothing to do with any (imaginary) intrinsic value of finecast, it's just what they think they can get you to pay.

 azreal13 wrote:

FWIW It's nothing to do with any pretention or hipster thinking. Most people with a solid background in writing and literature seem to agree that the books aren't technically that good, nobody seems to think they aren't massively influential.

If they have a solid background in literature they should find the notion of an objective evaluation of literature absurd. Clearly whoever you've been talking to is an enthusiastic, rather confused amateur.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 blood lance wrote:
I'd say the "New" Fellowship of the ring which is literally 9 small plastic models for half the cost it used to be to get that and 30 goblins and scenery, that, is GW gone mad. Sheesh.

I'm just going to watch this post get ignored by all and sundry

 insaniak wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
... and Americans earn significantly less than Australians.

Not actually entirely true.

The average minimum wage in Australia is higher... but the median household income is lower. Americans get paid less at minimum wage (on paper at least, we don't get tips in Oz in the same way as the US), but salaried professionals generally get paid more, going by the studies I've read.

Just a quick google, not a comprehensive comparison, but...

The median household income for the USA is $52,762

The median household income for Australia is $64,164

I'm sure cost of living and what-not is also a huge factor.

 Testify wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

FWIW It's nothing to do with any pretention or hipster thinking. Most people with a solid background in writing and literature seem to agree that the books aren't technically that good, nobody seems to think they aren't massively influential.

If they have a solid background in literature they should find the notion of an objective evaluation of literature absurd. Clearly whoever you've been talking to is an enthusiastic, rather confused amateur.

How did you manage to quote me and still fail to understand what I wrote?

Of course there is no way to objectively measure the quality of a creative work, that's not what I said. There can, however, be a general consensus of opinion amongst people who know what they're talking about. If you disagree with that view then that's ok, if you can offer solid reasoning as to why (something I haven't seen you do) then even better. However being in the minority opinion when talking about a creative work is the closest you can get to being 'wrong' in this context.

If you can offer such a compelling argument that you successfully overturn the established majority view, you have my congratulations.

I find Tolkien's writing to be overly verbose, the plotting unnecessarily flabby and the whole work to be too self indulgent to be a great literary work. If you disagree that's fine.

Could you stop trying to win this discussion now?

Still, this past weekend, no interest in the Hobit crap lining the shelves at the local store. Not even jokes about it. Not a single Hobit, or even LOTR minis sold.

 Kaldor wrote:
I'm sure cost of living and what-not is also a huge factor.

Not as much as you’d think.

To put it (alarmingly simplistically): Currency has value, and comparative values. A Tactical Squad is not worth more depending on where you happen to be standing on a planet.

Yeah.
Not buying any of this crud.

 martin74 wrote:
Still, this past weekend, no interest in the Hobit crap lining the shelves at the local store. Not even jokes about it. Not a single Hobit, or even LOTR minis sold.

oh good...if its slow to sell then they'll have one left at least for my birthday lol

azreal13 wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

FWIW It's nothing to do with any pretention or hipster thinking. Most people with a solid background in writing and literature seem to agree that the books aren't technically that good, nobody seems to think they aren't massively influential.

If they have a solid background in literature they should find the notion of an objective evaluation of literature absurd. Clearly whoever you've been talking to is an enthusiastic, rather confused amateur.

How did you manage to quote me and still fail to understand what I wrote?

Of course there is no way to objectively measure the quality of a creative work, that's not what I said. There can, however, be a general consensus of opinion amongst people who know what they're talking about. If you disagree with that view then that's ok, if you can offer solid reasoning as to why (something I haven't seen you do) then even better. However being in the minority opinion when talking about a creative work is the closest you can get to being 'wrong' in this context.

If you can offer such a compelling argument that you successfully overturn the established majority view, you have my congratulations.

I find Tolkien's writing to be overly verbose, the plotting unnecessarily flabby and the whole work to be too self indulgent to be a great literary work. If you disagree that's fine.

Could you stop trying to win this discussion now?

You know you're on the internet when someone claims that Tolkein not being a peice of gak is a "minority" opinion. Anyway I'll leave you to your hipster English friends. Hey what's the difference between an English degree and a bowel movement? A bowel movement requires effort.

This is my favourite passage from the Lord of the Rings: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."

You may regard that as "self-indulgent". I, do not.

 Testify wrote:

azreal13 wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

FWIW It's nothing to do with any pretention or hipster thinking. Most people with a solid background in writing and literature seem to agree that the books aren't technically that good, nobody seems to think they aren't massively influential.

If they have a solid background in literature they should find the notion of an objective evaluation of literature absurd. Clearly whoever you've been talking to is an enthusiastic, rather confused amateur.

How did you manage to quote me and still fail to understand what I wrote?

Of course there is no way to objectively measure the quality of a creative work, that's not what I said. There can, however, be a general consensus of opinion amongst people who know what they're talking about. If you disagree with that view then that's ok, if you can offer solid reasoning as to why (something I haven't seen you do) then even better. However being in the minority opinion when talking about a creative work is the closest you can get to being 'wrong' in this context.

If you can offer such a compelling argument that you successfully overturn the established majority view, you have my congratulations.

I find Tolkien's writing to be overly verbose, the plotting unnecessarily flabby and the whole work to be too self indulgent to be a great literary work. If you disagree that's fine.

Could you stop trying to win this discussion now?

You know you're on the internet when someone claims that Tolkein not being a peice of gak is a "minority" opinion. Anyway I'll leave you to your hipster English friends. Hey what's the difference between an English degree and a bowel movement? A bowel movement requires effort.

This is my favourite passage from the Lord of the Rings: "There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."

You may regard that as "self-indulgent". I, do not.

Why couldn't you have just used the quote bit, then we could have both walked away and I wouldn't be forced to contend with snide comments?

I don't hold an English degree, I am not a hipster, neither are any of my friends, I actually find that whole culture pretentious and superficial. I do however, have one thing, a mind of my fething own! That's right, I have an opinion, and the means to express why I hold that opinion, I do not expect everyone to agree with me, and sometimes I like to have a discussion with people who hold a different view as to why that may be.

It is not a competition, you do not win the internet if you somehow prove me wrong.

Please stop, before I get cross.

Besides, what does one decent line from a book prove?

Some actual reviews of Lord of the Rings.

http://www.nytimes.com/1954/10/31/books/tolkien-fellowship.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1955/05/01/books/tolkien-towers.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1956/01/22/books/tolkien-king.html

Art is subjective.
So all opinions are valid, as they are just opinions.
So those that like Tolken will continue to like Tolken, no matter how much other critique his 'art'.

However, the pricing of a product is a function of the sales operation.
And as such can be discussed objectivley, and comparativley.

Just sayin'

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Some actual reviews of Lord of the Rings.

http://www.nytimes.com/1954/10/31/books/tolkien-fellowship.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1955/05/01/books/tolkien-towers.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1956/01/22/books/tolkien-king.html

Reviews that are as old as the books themselves don't really come from the right cultural reference point or account for anything that has come since.

I take the point you're trying to make, but one person's view, or even many people's view, doesn't invalidate anyone else's.

text removed.
Reds8n

We can do without posts like this. Thanks.