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.

That sculpt of Legolas is.... horrifying. Has Orlando Bloom spent some major time on the pies? Has he been calling one of the Perry twins "stumpy"? Is it just a horrendous paint job? A true mystery!

Fun fact: Now that GW took pains to rename Bolg into "Gundabad Orc General", Peter Jackson put Bolg back into the second Hobbit movie as a named underling of Azog not related to the Bolg from the Hobbit book (different actor than in first movie as well).

The movie is good BTW. Same style as the first movie but more action, and elves and dragons are more interesting that trolls and wizards with bird droppings in their hair. Benedict Cumberbatch has the honour to speak the necromancer AND the dragon. Stephen Fry is the Master of Lake-town. And Peter Jackson has a quick cameo.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Fun fact: Now that GW took pains to rename Bolg into "Gundabad Orc General", Peter Jackson put Bolg back into the second Hobbit movie as a named underling of Azog not related to the Bolg from the Hobbit book (different actor than in first movie as well).

Yep, because Bolg looks completely different now. Also the rumor says it it was a change requested by Warner Bros.

Graphite wrote:
That sculpt of Legolas is.... horrifying. Has Orlando Bloom spent some major time on the pies? Has he been calling one of the Perry twins "stumpy"? Is it just a horrendous paint job? A true mystery!

Having now seen the film, I think I can confirm that it's the pies!

 Kroothawk wrote:
Fun fact: Now that GW took pains to rename Bolg into "Gundabad Orc General", Peter Jackson put Bolg back into the second Hobbit movie as a named underling of Azog not related to the Bolg from the Hobbit book (different actor than in first movie as well).

The movie is good BTW. Same style as the first movie but more action, and elves and dragons are more interesting that trolls and wizards with bird droppings in their hair. Benedict Cumberbatch has the honour to speak the necromancer AND the dragon. Stephen Fry is the Master of Lake-town. And Peter Jackson has a quick cameo.

actually not... he is the same guy in hobbit part 1 and the new part 2 movie... the only difference is that for the 5 seconds we she him in the first movie he is geting his head smashed by dwains sledgehammer... so in part 2... he is shaved without beard and some metal scrap to hold his brains inside his opened head...

he looks like a ghoul more than orc to me

anyways how can you call a cgi thingy an actor??

 Kroothawk wrote:
Fun fact: Now that GW took pains to rename Bolg into "Gundabad Orc General", Peter Jackson put Bolg back into the second Hobbit movie as a named underling of Azog not related to the Bolg from the Hobbit book (different actor than in first movie as well).

The movie is good BTW. Same style as the first movie but more action, and elves and dragons are more interesting that trolls and wizards with bird droppings in their hair. Benedict Cumberbatch has the honour to speak the necromancer AND the dragon. Stephen Fry is the Master of Lake-town. And Peter Jackson has a quick cameo.

Though they seem to have cut Thrain the Broken (xcept the intro-scene, that actually sets up his appearance?)

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Fun fact: Now that GW took pains to rename Bolg into "Gundabad Orc General", Peter Jackson put Bolg back into the second Hobbit movie as a named underling of Azog not related to the Bolg from the Hobbit book (different actor than in first movie as well).

The movie is good BTW. Same style as the first movie but more action, and elves and dragons are more interesting that trolls and wizards with bird droppings in their hair. Benedict Cumberbatch has the honour to speak the necromancer AND the dragon. Stephen Fry is the Master of Lake-town. And Peter Jackson has a quick cameo.

Though they seem to have cut Thrain the Broken (xcept the intro-scene, that actually sets up his appearance?)

Spoiler:

He might still be in the 3rd film...

Thrain could be in the extended version, but I expect he has something to do with whatever is going to happen to Gandalf in pt 3 (trying not to be spoilery) Also once again this isn't limited to GW. The old Bolg was an action figure last year. Also parts of the LEGO sets seem to come from next year's movie given their choice of which characters are in what set. Even the big Weta Chronicles book about art and design had concepts of Thrain and nothing on Bolg.

I think that making Smaug a wyvern was an interesting choice but I suspect it also had a bit of consideration for copyright issues because up until now Smaug has been represented by other artists as a 'regular' 4 legged dragon. I would also go out on a limb and say that I wouldn't be surprised if GW doesn't do a model of Smaug. He doesn't have a direct fight with anyone and the fight he does have would be impractical for a miniatures game.

Sikamikanic0 wrote:
actually not... he is the same guy in hobbit part 1 and the new part 2 movie... the only difference is that for the 5 seconds we she him in the first movie he is geting his head smashed by dwains sledgehammer... so in part 2... he is shaved without beard and some metal scrap to hold his brains inside his opened head...

he looks like a ghoul more than orc to me

anyways how can you call a cgi thingy an actor??

1.) Bolg is played by Conan Stevens in first movie and Lawrence Makoare in second and third movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_%28film_series%29
2.) In the book, Bolg is the Orc leader, after his farther Azog was killed in Moria. In the movie, Azog lives and Bolg is an underling of him.

Bloodwin wrote:
I would also go out on a limb and say that I wouldn't be surprised if GW doesn't do a model of Smaug. He doesn't have a direct fight with anyone and the fight he does have would be impractical for a miniatures game.

I don't know about anyone else, but a Smaug model is the only thing related to The Hobbit that I'm actually interested in. So it would be fething hilarious to me if they didn't, as personally I see that as a complete waste of the license.

Also, The Hobbit in general isn't really suitable for a miniatures game in my opinion. There's very little conflict between actual armies, other than the ending, so it's mostly about following a D&D party that consists almost entirely of dwarves. Most of the models they're releasing are characters and display pieces anyway so you might as well do the one piece that everyone's going to want.

Well...I should say a miniatures game "on the scale GW wants you to play", with huge armies of models.

A user on TLA forums sent an email to gw about the blog name change info:

I emailed GW custumer serviceabout the Bolg name change to get a bit of info off them.Heres what they said:

Thanks for the email.

Having done some investigations, I have found out that the reason that the Gundabad orc general is called a Gundabad orc general rather than Bolg, is that Warner Brothers have requested the name change. If you wish to use the Gundabad orc general as Bolg in your games, this is totally fine, as the rules will be the same seeing as Bolg is a Gundabad orc general. At present we do not have any information as to if a new Bolg miniature will be created or a new rules set specifically for him, however when we do know something, we will be advertising it thoroughly on the website and in White Dwarf.

I hope that this helps answer your question, but if you have anything further, please feel free to contact us again. Kind regards Lydia

Games Workshop Customer Service

More info: http://www.thelastalliance.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7475

I actually, finally, took a look at the hobbit minis and saw the prices... That's quite steep.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Also, The Hobbit in general isn't really suitable for a miniatures game in my opinion. There's very little conflict between actual armies, other than the ending, so it's mostly about following a D&D party that consists almost entirely of dwarves. Most of the models they're releasing are characters and display pieces anyway so you might as well do the one piece that everyone's going to want.

Well...I should say a miniatures game "on the scale GW wants you to play", with huge armies of models.

Really? The Battle of the Five Armies is pretty much the direct inspiration for Warhammer Fantasy (As well as the battles in LotR ofc) Then there's the flashback battle with the Gundabag orcs in the first film. I fully expect a battles game to come out for the third film. However I prefer it as a small narrative skirmish game, much like the LotR game for me it's about replaying particular scenes from the film, like the Goblin town escape. I'm sure GW will make the new Bolg as a mini as he has a fair bit of screen time in the film. I'm also waiting to see how much Beorn's bear form model will cost and some of the pricing has already got me head scratching as Legolas and Tauriel are both plastic and cost £15 each and yet the captain figures are £15 for two resin models. Also as an aside none of the new releases even mention the word "finecast". I ordered the old Bolg and Beorn with the new book and whilst "Bolg's" packaging has the finecast logo Beorn's model doesn't and they both appear to be made of the same material.

 Kroothawk wrote:

Sikamikanic0 wrote:
actually not... he is the same guy in hobbit part 1 and the new part 2 movie... the only difference is that for the 5 seconds we she him in the first movie he is geting his head smashed by dwains sledgehammer... so in part 2... he is shaved without beard and some metal scrap to hold his brains inside his opened head...

he looks like a ghoul more than orc to me

anyways how can you call a cgi thingy an actor??

1.) Bolg is played by Conan Stevens in first movie and Lawrence Makoare in second and third movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_%28film_series%29
2.) In the book, Bolg is the Orc leader, after his farther Azog was killed in Moria. In the movie, Azog lives and Bolg is an underling of him.

they probably mean their voices cause their 100% CGI generated both... right? anyways bolg dosent get to speak at the first movie at all

Sikamikanic0 wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

Sikamikanic0 wrote:
actually not... he is the same guy in hobbit part 1 and the new part 2 movie... the only difference is that for the 5 seconds we she him in the first movie he is geting his head smashed by dwains sledgehammer... so in part 2... he is shaved without beard and some metal scrap to hold his brains inside his opened head...

he looks like a ghoul more than orc to me

anyways how can you call a cgi thingy an actor??

1.) Bolg is played by Conan Stevens in first movie and Lawrence Makoare in second and third movie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_%28film_series%29
2.) In the book, Bolg is the Orc leader, after his farther Azog was killed in Moria. In the movie, Azog lives and Bolg is an underling of him.

they probably mean their voices cause their 100% CGI generated both... right? anyways bolg dosent get to speak at the first movie at all

I expect the actors were motion captured so that the actual acting came through the digital effects.

Sounds like I picked a great time to buy into the Hobbit SBG!

caylentor wrote:

Graphite wrote:
That sculpt of Legolas is.... horrifying. Has Orlando Bloom spent some major time on the pies? Has he been calling one of the Perry twins "stumpy"? Is it just a horrendous paint job? A true mystery!

Having now seen the film, I think I can confirm that it's the pies!

Agreed, along with a little middle age facial spread.... He looks very, very strange in the movie.


T

The female sculpts faces look so masculine.

I know I'm a bit late to the party, was just checking out the new LOTR models. I really like the Mirkwood Rangers but holy hell they are $70 for 10 in Australia :-( If they'd come out before I flew back from the US I would have bought a bunch of them, lol. I was thinking of getting them to use as Wood Elves, but not at that price.

Graphite wrote:That sculpt of Legolas is.... horrifying. Has Orlando Bloom spent some major time on the pies? Has he been calling one of the Perry twins "stumpy"? Is it just a horrendous paint job? A true mystery!

To be fair, you really have to see LOTR models in the flesh to either appreciate or criticise them. I haven't bought any Hobbit models, but I did get some older LOTR Frodo and Sam models and remember seeing them on the website and thinking they looked terrible and nothing like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin. But one I had the models in my hands, raw and unpainted, I realised they were actually very good sculpts and damned near impossible to paint to well enough to look like Elijah and Sean simply because they are so damned small.

What looks like a wonky mouth or missing toe on a LOTR model is often just too small to be noticed when you see the actual model in the flesh. The picture of Legolas' face on my monitor is about 30mm high... the actual model is, what, 4mm? less? It's waaaay smaller than GW's typical hero scale faces of 40k and Fantasy. It's really not a good scale for super-close-up-zoomed-in-showcase models because they're simply too small.

However, when I see the models in the flesh, I think they look leagues better than the cartoonish 40k and Fantasy stuff GW puts out these days.

Necro wrote:The female sculpts faces look so masculine.

It's really hard to paint feminine features on a face that tiny. You need to paint softer features, which on a model that size is very difficult to do, even if the sculpt is perfect.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I know I'm a bit late to the party, was just checking out the new LOTR models. I really like the Mirkwood Rangers but holy hell they are $70 for 10 in Australia :-( If they'd come out before I flew back from the US I would have bought a bunch of them, lol. I was thinking of getting them to use as Wood Elves, but not at that price.

Graphite wrote:That sculpt of Legolas is.... horrifying. Has Orlando Bloom spent some major time on the pies? Has he been calling one of the Perry twins "stumpy"? Is it just a horrendous paint job? A true mystery!

To be fair, you really have to see LOTR models in the flesh to either appreciate or criticise them. I haven't bought any Hobbit models, but I did get some older LOTR Frodo and Sam models and remember seeing them on the website and thinking they looked terrible and nothing like Elijah Wood and Sean Astin. But one I had the models in my hands, raw and unpainted, I realised they were actually very good sculpts and damned near impossible to paint to well enough to look like Elijah and Sean simply because they are so damned small.

What looks like a wonky mouth or missing toe on a LOTR model is often just too small to be noticed when you see the actual model in the flesh. The picture of Legolas' face on my monitor is about 30mm high... the actual model is, what, 4mm? less? It's waaaay smaller than GW's typical hero scale faces of 40k and Fantasy. It's really not a good scale for super-close-up-zoomed-in-showcase models because they're simply too small.

However, when I see the models in the flesh, I think they look leagues better than the cartoonish 40k and Fantasy stuff GW puts out these days.

Necro wrote:The female sculpts faces look so masculine.

It's really hard to paint feminine features on a face that tiny. You need to paint softer features, which on a model that size is very difficult to do, even if the sculpt is perfect.

Angel Giraldez can paint feminine faces just fine, maybe GW needs to hire better painters?

these things are painted by professionals? COuld have fooled me. I'm a slightly above average painter and I put these minis to shame

It helps that Angel Giraldez is such an amazing painter, but also that the female sculpts are so nice to begin with!

Just taking the latest releases as an example..

 Alkasyn wrote:
Angel Giraldez can paint feminine faces just fine, maybe GW needs to hire better painters?

Yeah, Angel has some great looking female faces. However I really don't know how the scale of the model's on Angel's blog compares to LOTR, so I can't really comment.

Personally I consider myself an average painter who can paint well if I spend a lot of time on it, however the LOTR faces are just too damned small for me to get any fading or smooth transitioning happening to create something that actually looks feminine when zoomed in close. The best I can hope for is something that looks kinda female when viewed from any reasonable viewing distance.

To do a fair comparison you would have to look at the side by side at their correct scales, not blown up a 4mm face to 30mm where you can see things that in real life you simply couldn't.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Alkasyn wrote:
Angel Giraldez can paint feminine faces just fine, maybe GW needs to hire better painters?

Yeah, Angel has some great looking female faces. However I really don't know how the scale of the model's on Angel's blog compares to LOTR, so I can't really comment.

Personally I consider myself an average painter who can paint well if I spend a lot of time on it, however the LOTR faces are just too damned small for me to get any fading or smooth transitioning happening to create something that actually looks feminine when zoomed in close. The best I can hope for is something that looks kinda female when viewed from any reasonable viewing distance.

To do a fair comparison you would have to look at the side by side at their correct scales, not blown up a 4mm face to 30mm where you can see things that in real life you simply couldn't.

They are the same scale AFAIK, both Hobbit and Infinity are 25mm instead of the usual 28mm "heroic" scale that GW uses for its other games (which are closer to 32mm anyway).

According to Google, Infinity is 28mm, but really I'd want to see them next to each other to compare, you never really know until you look at them next to each other.

I'm not trying to say the GW models are painted awesome, simply that realistically I don't think you'd see any of the flaws people here are pointing out unless you looked at the models under a magnifying glass and to people saying they could do better, maybe show some proof on the same scale models before you poop on someone elses' work

Infinity models are quite delicate. It's a fair scale comparison. Whether it's the sculpt, the paint, or a combination of each, these aren't in the same league.

Really not a fan of figures striding one direction but firing in another direction. Makes it confusing on figuring out their facing.

BrotherVord wrote:
these things are painted by professionals? COuld have fooled me. I'm a slightly above average painter and I put these minis to shame

In all fairness to the eavy metal team they're told to paint well below what they can do.

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

BrotherVord wrote:
these things are painted by professionals? COuld have fooled me. I'm a slightly above average painter and I put these minis to shame

In all fairness to the eavy metal team they're told to paint well below what they can do.

Has that ever been confirmed?
I've heard a lot of people saying that, and it makes sense, but so does the theory they simply replaced the eavy metal team with random guys from the studio as a(nother) cost cutting measure.

Just a casual reminder that good Hobbit related models are being made.




You really gotta wonder what New Line think of GW if they did ditch the new starter box around the same time they gave Knight Models the license to do 35mm stuff.