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.

 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?"

MB

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.

 Paradigm wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


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?

MB

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.

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.


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.

BeAfraid wrote:


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.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:



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.

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.

 Ketara wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


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.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:



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.

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.

MB

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.

 Mysterious Pants wrote:

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.

MB

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.

BeAfraid wrote:


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!").

 Ketara wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


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.

MB

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.

I prefer the film over the books anyway. The books are bloated and dull.

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.

 Da Boss wrote:

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 GWs LotR 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.

BeAfraid wrote:


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?

'Misinformation'. 'False impression'. 'False image'.

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.

There's a good thread on OR for alternative minis:
http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=27240



Still very little for non-character Elves/Dwarves, though.

 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, GW lotR 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...

That troll... I want it! Anyone have a clue where to get one?

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.

 Paradigm wrote:
That troll... I want it! Anyone have a clue where to get one?

This, I crave that figure!

 Paradigm wrote:
That troll... I want it! Anyone have a clue where to get one?

http://basicks.eu/shop/index.php?id_product=184&controller=product


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
That troll... I want it! Anyone have a clue where to get one?

http://basicks.eu/shop/index.php?id_product=184&controller=product

They also sell this guy.

 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.

MB

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:

http://footsoreminiatures.co.uk/collections/28mm-goths-germanic

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

http://footsoreminiatures.co.uk/collections/28mm-dark-ages-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:

https://www.facebook.com/271339052885426/photos/a.348736995145631.87640.271339052885426/985046688181322/?type=1&theater

MB

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 GW LotR 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.