Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Fantasy Adventures => Topic started by: Momotaro on November 30, 2013, 07:27:18 PM
-
The first wave of releases for the new film are here:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCatsLarge.jsp?catId=cat970003a&rootCatGameStyle=athletic
First thoughts:
No boxed game to go with the new movie? That's a first. Desolation of Smaug is book only, a rather slim 64-pager.
Elves. Lots of elves. The rangers look decent though, and the royal guard have a leafy theme that is at least different. You can tell male elves from females, apparently, because the females have curved bows... ;D
Thranduil and the "dwarves in barrels" set are the only Finecast models. Legolas and Tauriel are multipart plastics (GW has done some great models this way recently, so no complaints from me), others are described as "resin".
Beorn in man-form, but no bear.
Prices insane, but probably best to take complaints about that to the stickied thread in Open Talk.
This really feels like quite a low-key release. It's not a bad starting lineup, I just feel a bit sad considering how much GW had built up the LotR line.
-
The dwarves in barrels look cool. A nice interpretation since I wouldn't pay $65 for a set of " waterlogged barrels" lol
-
Prices insane, but probably best to take complaints about that to the stickied thread in Open Talk.
This really feels like quite a low-key release. It's not a bad starting lineup, I just feel a bit sad considering how much GW had built up the LotR line.
Presume it's all down to the choice of the accountants.
Maybe sales of LoTR are slowing up or maybe they don't think this film will be a big seller?
I suppose it's a bit of a surprise not to have a Smaug to desolate with?
I would have expected something big like the Mumak.
Shouldn't there be Men of Dale as well? or is that only in the 3rd film?
Possibly lake buildings (visualising something like the Airfix jungle hut on stilts) and boats too.
I haven't seen the hobbit film yet. Or the trailer.
-
I think men of dale are already up. Dunno about a Bard or the Town Master, though....
-
Prices insane, but probably best to take complaints about that to the stickied thread in Open Talk.
Trouble is, that's the most notable thing about it.
And the thing about GW not wanting it to compete internally with both flavours of Warhammer, but better than another company using the Tolkien properties to compete with Warhammer, so they give it the minimum of attention and a meh when working out the price.
Otherwise, I think I'd sooner buy a bunch of Renedra barrels and Hasslefree heads, and bodge beards on 'em.
-
I like the Elven models. All of them. But that's a rather big investment....
Beorn Looks utter crap, but I'm afraid that's Mr Jackson's fault. Gosh, he is supposed to be a chieftain/shaman of some northman culture not some post apocalyptic maniac from Madmax...
And I don't fancy those Dalemen either. They look way too... Asiatic from their whole attire. I've always imagined them more like Rohirrim light, so to speak.
-
And I don't fancy those Dalemen either. They look way too... Asiatic from their whole attire. I've always imagined them more like Rohirrim light, so to speak.
Rohan marines perhaps?
Hadn't seen the Dale men previously - I expected them on the Desolation page.
See what you mean about the odd appearance.
-
Trouble is, that's the most notable thing about it.
I know, but I figured we should stay on-topic for the Fantasy forum :D
Beorn Looks utter crap, but I'm afraid that's Mr Jackson's fault.
I said the same about the Hobbit Goblins across in the Open Talk sticky thread - lovely models with a ton of uses, except as high-fantasy goblins. And it's not even GW's fault...
-
I think the lack of a box set, and the strange release pattern of Hobbit miniatures so far is down to the late decision to split it from 2 movies into three. I think all of these minis would have been part of a first movie release/
It is interesting to compare the price of the dwarves in barrels (£40 for 13 figs or at least half figs) with the price of the white council from a year before (£45 for 4 figs). Perhaps even GW realized they crossed a line. I think it's a cute set. A bit pointless from a gaming perspective, but good for a diorama.
While I'm not a huge fan of the look of Beorn, its not that far from the Mithril minis version. And in the Hobbit he is more presented as a grim loner - the idea of the Beorning race doesn't come until the Lord of the Rings.
I like the elf rangers, but the armoured ones look like they are wearing bug helmets or something.
-
Doomhippie: I'm not even fond of the mini. Looks a touch too stiff.
John Howe's Beorn is still the closest to the first image that formed in my head, way back with that first read. Alan Lee's ain't bad either.
http://www.john-howe.com/portfolio/gallery/details.php?image_id=966
http://alan-and-john.tumblr.com/post/39376528584/beorn-gandalf-and-bilbo-by-alan-lee
Like you say, he's a big dark ages dude with a big dark ages beard. No need to go all weird with the Wolverine-meets-trollslayer-and-bedhead-gel thing!
Dalemen? You mean the royal guard? Thranduil's royal guard...?
On that note, Thranduil's crown... collar... whatever... looks too much like that of a bunch of Warhammer vampires and necromancers for my tastes. In general... dang. I know elves are supposed to be a bit otherworldly and different in culture, but that thing just looks ridiculous, perched on his cheekbones.
Joe: Sorry! Beorn's mentioned as welcoming the woodmen for yule, and becoming a great chief and ancestor of skinchangers afterwards, when they stop at his hall on the return journey.
-
I'm unimpressened to say the least. But I really don't like Jackson's imagery of Tolkien's works.
-
Shouldn't there be Men of Dale as well? or is that only in the 3rd film?
There is a set already in peculiar hunnic hats:
(http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3060233a_99121464014_WarriorsOfDale01_445x319.jpg)
£15 for a single resin model. It is so contra-intuitive that their price model works. ??? ??? ???
-
Been trying hard to avoid looking before seeing the film but just failed lol
The rangers are neat and I'm in love with Legolas (I know - not really in the book etc etc) and the Thrain singles but I'll wait till they come on eBay in the new year for a few pound less as unwanted presents ;D >:D o_o
-
The lack of a starter is down to GW relegating LOTR to specialist games status now. Retailers are no longer required to carry the line beyond a meager box of the old unexpected journey. A sad beginning of the end for LotR. GW has priced it into oblivion. Well done!
The minis are disappointing generally this time - uninspired, although that may be just the movie visual which isn't anywhere near what the LoTR movies were, and Peter Jackson's horrible decision to make up his own Hobbit story rather than following one of the classic stories of fantasy. Better than Tolkien? Not a chance, Jackson. Such a shame.
I will only be picking up the book this round as I have all the others back to the beginning. I bought the Fellowship game release week, and was a big fan of the game early on. My old club used to have more LOTR players than 40k, and we had 75 members at one point! Our LotR tourneys were epic and great fun.
-
I am very surpriesd and disappointed by this launch.
I had expected a new boxed set and some impressive plastic kits (Smaug, mirkwood spiders). Instead, we appear to only have figures for a small part of the film.
Of the figures that are there, only the plastic Mirkwoood elves are vaguely interesting.
This will be my lowest spend ever on new LOTR / Hobbit stuff.
Mick
-
Color me disappointed, as well. I am not impressed with any of the figures. I loved the dwarves from the first movie's releases (and actually bought all of the non-resin ones), but I really don't care for the looks of any of these new figures.
-
I really like Thrain! The rest are a little underwhelming. The dwarves in barrels are cute at least.
I agree with whoever mentioned GW paying minimum attention to the franchise. It smacks of ashcan product to barely keep the range afloat, and out of other peoples' hands.
-
This will be my lowest spend ever on new LOTR / Hobbit stuff.
I expect I may spend less than you on the basis of what I've seen.
-
I really like the dwarves in barrels, no idea what I'd use them for though!
-
I assume Beorn as bear, Smaug and the spiders are all embargoed until the movie actually comes out.
All of the models so far shown are shown in some form in the trailers.
I'd expect at least one more rlease of models between now and Christmas.
The Balrog, Gollum and mumaks (?) were all embargoed when the LotR movies came out.
-
Heard an interesting theory that the lack of starter is due to New Line splitting the 2 movies into 3 and GW not having enough lead time. No idea if true, but certainly explains the lack of releases for the 2nd movie. Although, the crap sales of the first Hobbit figures probably also fully xplains it, but I found it an interesting theory nontheless.
Pretty stoked for those rangers, they're everythign the first Wood Elf Warrior set should have been. Not keen on the price, but at least it's not $50 for 10 elves like the Dark Elf and High Elf Warhammer releases, so...progress? Not keen on the palace guard and the new legolas is a great sculpt except the face. But once somebody said he looked like Vladimir Putin that's all I see now.
The dwarves in barrels held no interest for me at all and seem to be pretty strange figures to release, but I just had a thought that they'd make for an AWESOME convention game.
-
I may have considered some of the character models but £15 for a single model is just way to much.
-
I assume Beorn as bear, Smaug and the spiders are all embargoed until the movie actually comes out.
All of the models so far shown are shown in some form in the trailers.
I'd expect at least one more rlease of models between now and Christmas.
The Balrog, Gollum and mumaks (?) were all embargoed when the LotR movies came out.
There is a Beorn miniature on the GW site.
-
I surprise myself by saying this but....I like some of those.
I say surprised as I could not stand the first film or pretty much anything in it.
(I only liked the snippets of Mirkwood/Dol Guldur).
The Mirkwood Rangers are pretty good and I think that I shall take a second look.
They may work for me (.....I really cannot believe I am saying this!).
The spiders are very nice and I can also see a few people having fun using those potted Dwarves in a nice diorama.
I shall NOT be paying their prices, though.
I shall be waiting for all those kids out there who will soon tire of their christmas presents and sell them on ebay... ;)
-
I shall NOT be paying their prices, though.
I shall be waiting for all those kids out there who will soon tire of their christmas presents and sell them on ebay... Wink
I'm afraid I won't even do that anymore. GW has priced me out of their franchise. I bought into this with LOTR, but avoided The Hobbit when I saw the outrageous prices........ :'(
-
There is a Beorn miniature on the GW site.
But not as a bear. That's the difference.
-
The lack of a box set is likely due to the fact that the first one didn't sell! Why spend money to produce another one when you still have loads of the "limited edition" boxes left?
I think GW has given up on this line. I can't say I blame them, and it isn't entirely their fault since the look of the movie is SOOOO bad. This go around lacks the charm of the first movies. Kinda like Start Wars episodes 1-3...everything is overdesigned and just looks, well, stupid.
My biggest dissapointment with the release is that the spiders are finecast. Would've had a million uses for plastic spiders and would've bought a ton, but I won't touch finecast. Pity...
-
Strangely, some of this stuff is just being referred to as "resin". What's that all about? Are GW aware of the hatred even for the word "Finecast"?
I have to say I have found Peter Jackson's depictions of Middle Earth in the Hobbit films so far have really not done it for me one bit. From the goofy Dwarfs to the pink-ghoulish Goblins or the just plain weird Men of Dale... bleh!
-
My biggest dissapointment with the release is that the spiders are finecast. Would've had a million uses for plastic spiders and would've bought a ton, but I won't touch finecast. Pity...
Damn!
I missed that bit.
Scratch them off of my list then...which is a shame.
I have to say I have found Peter Jackson's depictions of Middle Earth in the Hobbit films so far have really not done it for me one bit. From the goofy Dwarfs to the pink-ghoulish Goblins or the just plain weird Men of Dale... bleh!
Gotta say I agree with this almost 100%.
Only almost as I have not really seen any of the Dale folk properly yet.
-
The Hobbit is one of my favourite books but I'm struggling to recognize it on the big screen. And if these miniatures are what I can expect from the next installment I may just give it a miss completely. Especially as I am not a fan of how they're pronouncing Smaug
-
More proof that the Rankin/Bass version is the best! Dreadful folk singing and all, that movie is engrained in my mind as what The Hobbit should look like.
It also helps that the PJ version was kind of shit... ::)
-
so who thinks the smaug miniature will end up being north of £100 ?
given the size of the dragon from the movies i think they might release him just as a head/neck coming out of a door or something....
-
so who thinks the smaug miniature will end up being north of £100 ?
given the size of the dragon from the movies i think they might release him just as a head/neck coming out of a door or something....
The head/neck is probably just one of the versions: ;)
Inside the mountain - wings folded
Outside the mountain - flying
Inside the mountain - left leg forward
Inside the mountain - talking with Bilbo
Outside the mountain - breathing fire
Outside the mountain - with black feathered arrow in chest
...
Me? Slightly cynical of GW marketing tactics? ::)
Cheers!
Joe Thomlinson
-
I'm hoping for a re-release of the Battle of the Five Armies set for the net movie. I sold my copy off in a moment of weakness and would love to replace it.
Jake
-
I'm hoping for a re-release of the Battle of the Five Armies set for the net movie. I sold my copy off in a moment of weakness and would love to replace it.
Jake
That was a real non venture wasn't it.
It's a shame because it looked really fun despite some sub par sculpts (im looking at you smaug!)
The product list for this release says had a miniature called "turin dragon slayer".here's hoping gw make more miniatures for the non movie Tolkien stories.
-
That was a real non venture wasn't it.
It's a shame because it looked really fun despite some sub par sculpts (im looking at you smaug!)
The product list for this release says had a miniature called "turin dragon slayer".here's hoping gw make more miniatures for the non movie Tolkien stories.
What list has Turin on it? GW doesn't have the rights to the Silmarillion. Or Unfinished Tales.
-
The Hobbit is one of my favourite books but I'm struggling to recognize it on the big screen. And if these miniatures are what I can expect from the next installment I may just give it a miss completely. Especially as I am not a fan of how they're pronouncing Smaug
Now as a German I have to say that's exactly how I pronounced him as a kid. And as the word derives from the Old Englisch "Smeagan" (creeping, slithering) it might actually be fairly Close to what Tolkien had in mind. Plus the pronounciation of the au in Tolkien's writings is similar to the word how according to the pronounciation guide given by Tolkien.
I actually like the movies. Okay, maybe the jump and run scenes in goblintown were too much for me. And those stupid stone giants. But apart from that I like the movies actually better than the book. And that's saying something.
-
See I'm the opposite to doomhippy,I read the book when I was a teen,struggled to get into it,but kept at it,and couldn't put it down in the end,
The movies were ok,but really only watched them to see how they had interpreted it,and as there's nothing really similar out there.
-
First and formost I never compare a book to a movie, or a movie to a book.
I have always found Tolkiens stuff difficult to get into, very dry (mirroring its age really). I liked the films though; its just someones interpretation, or rather a fantasy action film based on the Hobbit. Comparing it to our own interpretations has its own obvious issues.
Fact is, its visually appeasing and has lots of dwarves, elves, orcs, monsters etc, with big battles and evil villains. So long as it sticks to this then its good for what it is.
However I won't be purchasing any of the new stuff from GW.
1. Its too expensive
2. I think 90% of its pretty flimsy looking anyway.
3. Don't really want to support GW
-
Yeah, the movies are good films but ... they're not the books. I like them both, but they're separate entities.
-
I like both the films, the books and the miniatures. I will not pay those prices though.
-
That was a real non venture wasn't it.
It's a shame because it looked really fun despite some sub par sculpts (im looking at you smaug!)
For sure. But the plastics - at least, the white hats I scraped of ebay - are probably the best 10mms I've seen.
See I'm the opposite to doomhippy,I read the book when I was a teen,struggled to get into it,but kept at it,and couldn't put it down in the end,
I don't know if it was part of the curriculum, but our primary school headmaster - teacher of years 6+7 - distributed a bunch of copies and read it out as we read along. It's that, and Star Wars (by way of the Droids cartoon) that made me end up here.
I still remember the voice he put on for Gollum, and the drawing I made of goblins at the 'back door' for an english exercise on it. My first fantasy art! They looked like Urpneys. ;D
So yeah... I've been fond of it ever since, no matter it's shortcomings. It's why I would've liked to see modern Middle-Earth film interpretations that were a bit more faithful; a bit more in keeping with the 'feel' of the setting. It's not all down to sheer interpretation, IMO, or it wouldn't be so successful. It's why I'm not happy with Peter Jackson shoehorning in all his type of shortcomings and the feel of a Michael Bay film into it. It's not the feel of - if you'll pardon the expression - the 'real' Middle Earth that book-shunning moviegoers love, but a shallower, tinnier, ersatz version. It's like a friend being replaced by a pod person, with too many people deciding to keep the pod person because it's a jerk but looks a bit shinier. Like Cubs says, though not with this particular meaning - they're not the books. They're not The Hobbit; they're not The Lord of the Rings.
(PJ... a lacklustre moviemaker until the grandaddy of modern fantasy books fell in his lap. I mean, he's still a lacklustre moviemaker, but now he's a media dahling and a 'sir' of all things, because the grandaddy of modern fantasy books fell into his lap. He couldn't muck it up completely. But I digress... and how!)
-
Thranduil has a nice "Elric of Melnibone" feel to him... that's about all I can say for this release.
And still making stuff in Finecast despite supposedly getting rid of it sometime in the near future. Blergh.
-
I like the Mirkwood gang and Legolas and the girl-elf. The barrels are really cute; will likely buy those for the wife to paint. I was really looking forward to a Beorn miniature with this release; and I might have overlooked how dumb he appears, but....resin. No sale. Looks like I'll wind up with plastic elves and barrel dwarves.
-
The old Vendel (Now Sgt Major Minis) fantasy Hill Giant is about the best Beorn out there - he's 40mm+. They also do an amazing (and huge) were-bear in the same line.
http://www.sgmm.biz/B02-Hill-Giant_p_381.html
For me, The Hobbit was my first foray into fantasy after hearing it read out on "Jackanory" on TV in the 70s when I was about 8, although I was already a SF reader. I rushed out to the library that evening, and there it was! My parents got me LotR for Christmas a couple of years later, and D&D red box followed a couple of years after that.
Hearing my English teacher say he didn't like "fairy stories" like LotR in secondary school really put me off him...
-
Quite like that Beorn and Bear from Vendel. Would like to see them next to other minis for some perspective, but pretty impressive anyway
-
Beorn as a 40+mm model? Way out of proportion in my opinion. Though the model istelf is quite nice. I've never pictured him as a giant though. A very big and tall man. And an even larger bear maybe. But that's of course a matter of opinion.
-
Well, first off...I'm probably in a minority because I do like the WETA workshop vision of Middle Earth. And I loved the first Hobbit movie!! Call me weird if you want. You won't be the first persons to do so and you won't be the last ;)
So, given all that, I also like most of the new models. The Rangers are fabulous - really graceful and the most 'Elven' of all the Elves so far. The Palace guard are not all posed brilliantly and the ratio of shields to warriors in the box is stupid...but I think they'll paint up beautifully. I LOVE the shields... The main disappointment is the dreadful command figure carrying his sword two handed - clumsy sculpt, poor posing.
Legolas and Tauriel are great, although Legolas' face isn't perfect. They are great leaders for the Rangers though and will be a joy to paint.
Beorn...not impressed with him. He's too big and just doesn't look right. The barrels set looks cool, but is useless outside the one scenario in the supplement.
I'm not gonna slag GW off. Too many people do that already. They got me into gaming. Without GW, I'd have missed out on all this cool gaming stuff over the last 25 plus years. I may not like the pricing or their tendency to 'improve' rulesets when they don't need improving, but they still make some of the best Fantasy models out there across their main game systems. These new models fit right in there and they are great representations of the WETA vision of Middle Earth.
I can see me using my birthday and Christmas money to make a 6pt Saga Mirkwood warband with these Elves (to use with the Elven board that is out there on the web at the mo) and I'm sure somebody in the family can be persuaded to buy me the supplement for Christmas... :D
I have no doubt that this post will cause some people to gasp in disbelief at me actually liking all this new-fangled non-book Hobbit stuff, this stuff, but that's just me. I've never been one to follow the crowd and I'm too old and awkward to change the way I think now... ;)
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Andy, but I'm mostly with you - at least about the Middle-Earth models. I do like these Elves guite a bit.
Oh, and I like most of the things in the movies. Not all and I have always seen them as PJ interpretation of a book, not as the book itself. Once I made that compromise I was mostly happy with what he did. And the rest I didn't like was - let's say- good enough not spoil anything else.
-
Good on you guys for speaking out. Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything.
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Andy, but I'm mostly with you - at least about the Middle-Earth models. I do like these Elves guite a bit.
Oh, and I like most of the things in the movies. Not all and I have always seen them as PJ interpretation of a book, not as the book itself. Once I made that compromise I was mostly happy with what he did. And the rest I didn't like was - let's say- good enough not spoil anything else.
Not disappointed at all...nice to see others who also have positive views about it all :-) At least on here there's a balance of views about the movies etc, even if there is the usual plethora of GW bashing (which I do understand, to be fair)
-
Good on you guys for speaking out. Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything.
I disagree!
-
I disagree!
I see what you did there ;)
I loved the LoTR movies and enjoyed the 1st Hobbit film...except for turning Radagast into a clown. That was the only bit that really chafed for me. I was very disappointed in the GW releases for the 1st film though.
-
except for turning Radagast into a clown.
Yes, l had that Jar Jar Binks moment too. :o
-
I like the movies. I'm a huge Tolkien fan, and sure, I know there are some significant changes, additions & omissions. Some of them I understand and agree with (for the sake of adapting to film that needs millions of tickets to be bought), some of them disappoint me, but I figure I only have myself to blame for not becoming a famous director & producer and so have the weight to create the films exactly as I ideally want them. Just one of many things to add to the heap of life's disappointments lol
GW seem to be doing a pretty good job of making minis that reflect what is in the films, which they're pretty well limited to. I don't understand why Jackson decided goblins of the Misty Mountains should be radioactive vat-born mutants, when the very nearby Moria goblins are nothing like them and were sinister and cool (seriously those were awesome goblins). And I wonder if GW will be faithful to the Hobbit movie and give every dwarf an agility that rivals Legolas... that dinner party proved once and for all that dwarves not only do not have lower agility than men, but elves have serious competition. From now on I want Dwarves to all have Agility 8 or better and I want Blood Bowl dwarves to have agility 5, sure hands, accurate, nerves of steel and catch. ;D
As for the valu of the movie, I think The Hobbit is a greater challenge than Lord of the Rings was. The LotR novels are presented as an adult novel of an old epic saga. The Hobbit novel is presented as a youth-excessable story of an old epic saga. So the LotR movies had a clearer path laid out: the telling of & the tale are on the same 'level', if anything the movies add comic relief to a degree that isn't present in the novels (there's some, but no allusions to dwarf-tossing & such). The Hobbit has a tougher decision to make: present the novel 'The Hobbit' or present the epic saga that the Hobbit novel is based on (within the fictional setting). Jackson seems to have decided to opt for the later, predictably enough, since it fits better with the LotR movies, but that means the films are going to be open to a lot more easy criticism because they'll be more different from the novel than the LotR movies were from theirs. As for details, like Radagast.. no, I never pictured him as a weedbert hippie and didn't think that was the right direction to go, I imagined him having the same feel as the ents: self-absorbed disinterest in the outside world of the free peoples and rather stoic & quiet. But the film Radagast is the kind of comic relief that can't be avoided if the budget is going to be what is required, and really, he does get to be a bit badass for awhile, so maybe not so bad. But if needing comic relief should have relied more on Bombur, not Radagast.
No film version will ever completely satisfy everyone, or even anyone. The animated captured the children story feel well, but the elves looked like frog headed aliens, so I'm glad we're not getting minis of those. Actually, I might want those.. hmm. So the GW releases are hit & miss for me, bc the film visuals are hit & miss for what I see in my head.
-
I disagree!
No you don't.
-
Well put Laughing Ferret.
Although, in a true case of can't please everyone. I love the Hobbit goblins (movie and figures) and didn't care for the LOTR ones at all.
-
Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything.
But it would go a lot smoother if you all just agreed with me. >:D
the very nearby Moria goblins are nothing like them and were sinister and cool (seriously those were awesome goblins).
I'll concede that large chunks of the look of Movie-Earth look quite good; but in the spirit of orneriness I'd be more willing to lay that at the feet of others in the crew, particularly John Howe and Alan Lee.
-
"And I loved the first Hobbit movie!!" You're weird Andy :D
Hand on heart i thought it was a dreadful film and will be avoiding the remaining films like the plague.
Still, horses for courses.
J
-
"And I loved the first Hobbit movie!!" You're weird Andy :D
I keep giving myself a good talking to about it but all that seems to do is reinforce everyone's views about the weirdness!!!! :D
-
I just bought the extended version for Christmas........
-
I'd like to see a quality production company (Sky Atlantic?) take hold of the franchise and do the whole lot, Tom Bombadil and all, absolutely faithfully to the books in the form of a series. Damn, but that could be quality viewing.
-
....and also very long.......... ;)
-
What else is there on TV anyway? :)
-
Strictly or celebrity!!! :P
-
I just bought the extended version for Christmas........
Got that, too :D
-
I'd like to see a quality production company (Sky Atlantic?) take hold of the franchise and do the whole lot, Tom Bombadil and all, absolutely faithfully to the books in the form of a series. Damn, but that could be quality viewing.
Wouldn't we all, mate?
That would be bloody wonderful.
:D
(Although I do think, putting Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest being absent aside, that the first film was a damn good adaptation of the book. It was what happened after that lessened it's appeal for me).
-
(Although I do think, putting Tom Bombadil and the Old Forest being absent aside, that the first film was a damn good adaptation of the book. It was what happened after that lessened it's appeal for me).
The extended editions are weird. Fellowship is brilliant, Two towers is OK and adds a few minor details. The extended Return of the King actually makes the film worse - "You and whose army?", Gandalf having his staff shattered by the Witch King, clambering through piles of skulls in the Paths of the Dead, and I don't really care much for the Mouth of Sauron.
Oh yeah... spoilers ;)
-
I just bought the extended version for Christmas........
The extended version makes for a slower, more narrative, pace. It's an improvement. I guess I am getting old.
-
The extended version makes for a slower, more narrative, pace. It's an improvement. I guess I am getting old.
Looking forward to watching it. A lot! :)
-
I just bought the extended version for Christmas........
I'm waiting for the whole trilogy to come out as an extended boxset so i can spend a solid day watching them all.
(and i can justify the cost by saying that i managed to get all the deluxe extended lord of the rings 4 disk sets for a fiver at a car boot)
-
...and then watch LOTR on day 2? :D
-
...and then watch LOTR on day 2? :D
Epic!
-
Has anyone seen the Rifftrax version of LOTR? I literally cried through every one. If anyone is familiar with MST3000, it's the same guys. Their 'Alien' version is also fantastic!
-
...and then watch LOTR on day 2? :D
Of course.
I get 2 days off from college in the week and so i often use them to watch all of star wars and lord of the rings with a day of work between the two.
Makes for a good week. :)
-
Has anyone seen the Rifftrax version of LOTR? I literally cried through every one. If anyone is familiar with MST3000, it's the same guys. Their 'Alien' version is also fantastic!
Tried but failed. I found the Humor rather flat and uninspired. The usual smoking weed jokes when Bilbo smokes his pipe, the usual call each other names sitautions. Okay, once or twice I actually giggled but overall not my cup of tea.
-
This has inspired me to go back and watch the LOTR extended versions again.
I forgot how much I loved Fellowship of the Ring.
-
TBH while I prefer the extended editions of LOTR I'm hoping someone will do a book cut of the hobbit movies and strip out all the crap that's not in the book
-
TBH while I prefer the extended editions of LOTR I'm hoping someone will do a book cut of the hobbit movies and strip out all the crap that's not in the book
Well, then there would be only one movie, wouldn't there? lol
-
Well, then there would be only one movie, wouldn't there? lol
exactly my point ;)
-
I'm sure that'll appear on YouTube sooner or later. I am very happy that PJ tried to fit the Hobbit into the context of Middle-Earth and not as a standalone movie. But that is my personal opinion. I like Background stories. Even in tabletop games they are more important to me than the game itself - mostly.
-
I'm sure that'll appear on YouTube sooner or later. I am very happy that PJ tried to fit the Hobbit into the context of Middle-Earth and not as a standalone movie. But that is my personal opinion. I like Background stories. Even in tabletop games they are more important to me than the game itself - mostly.
Got to agree here.If the hobbit had just been left completely independent as a movie it would make the franchise feel disjointed.
And i agree on the gaming point aswell, i can't count the amount of demo games i've played where i have never looked at the game again because the narrative wasn't given any attention.
-
I think that his aim was to create a 6 film cycle, that follows the storyline from TH to LOTR in a way that works, unlike Star Wars!!
-
I think that his aim was to create a 6 film cycle, that follows the storyline from TH to LOTR in a way that works, unlike Star Wars!!
To really pull that off he would have needed a 7th film: Scouring of the Shire. but lost that chance with the way Return of the King ends.
But yes, looks like it will be much more successful at that then Star Wars was.
Even if I am not always thrilled with the choices being made, I'm still greedy for more ...the extended versions of LotR are better than the theater releases: more background tells more, for example the theater version was nearly a character assassination of Faramir, but the extended cleaned up most of that impression. But I can't help feeling that if the Hobbit can merit 3 movies the other movies could have been granted more time & material too.
One thing the movies have captured, at least for me, is a sense of Epic. it does feel larger than life with a feeling of a big rich story worthy of a movie, where a lot (but not all) of fantasy and sci-fi movies of the last decade have felt more in scale with a 2-part TV series episode, and I'm left thinking 'some cool visuals, but wasn't much of a story'.. probably a lot of that is due to Tolkien himself, but I think Jackson's movies have captured the atmosphere and depth of story that other franchises and one-shots haven't come close to with their stories.
-
do you know what I would pay 3 times as much to see as this movie trilogy.
the same 3 movies all joined together then edited down to 97 minutes.
same deal with lord of the rings.
I think peter jackson is great but I think who ever his editor is needs to grow a spine and take off the rose tinted glasses and be able to say 'we are cutting that, it does not move the story forward!'
I fell asleep in the hobbit 3 times, I fell asleep in pacific rim twice, slept through an entire half of the avengers or what ever that super hero team up one was. (no idea how that one ends)
Just too long and too boring and unfocused and lazy and egotistical and rude in summary.
Honestly i think this is less an issue with the films and more you needing a better sleeping pattern.
Pacific rim was great,barely any dead space in it as far as i can see.
The avengers.. My god man,how could you not enjoy it?!? the second half was wonderful.
The hobbit took a long time to start in order to properly set up the story plus it had to introduce a large cast of characters in preparation for the second film.
-
Pacific Rim about midway both times I viewed it fell asleep
Never got to the second half of avengers, slept through the lot of it and woke when the credits rolled
I threw the hobbit into AE 10 minutes ago and had a very quick muck about with editing a random chunk. In a totally random 30 second chunk the amount of stuff that could be cut and still keep the story intact was scary. easy got it to under 10. I seriously think if you cut out all the extra stuff he added and all the padding on the other stuff you could do the entire film in 32 and 1/3 minutes easy (minus titles and credits eating into that time of course) How long did that extra stuff add? an hour an hour and a half? You have at least another 30 minutes in angstful gazes you can put on the floor. Seriously its far too easy to edit down.
But a movie isn't about having an efficient and time conscious experience, the goal is not to cram as much story into into as little time. it's about escaping into a world, creating a strong and deep world.you can make a utilitarian version of a story sure, but then you may as well just read the basic plot point from the first page of a spark notes study guide.
-
I have no problem with long movies or epic movies and in the case of LOTR I even think the extended edition plays a lot better than the theatrical cut but with the hobbit I feel like he's shoehorning an epic movie series in what's essentially a children's book. I probably would have less problems with it if it wasn't called the hobbit, but something like the battle of five armies or something that reflects what it really is.
I really would have preferred a simple standalone movie that would reflect the book rather then an 12 hour epic, if I want to watch that I'll put in the Lord of The Rings, I really don't see me watching any of the hobbit stuff again, I'll watch it once in the cinema, because well, might as well, won't cost me anything since I have a subscription deal for the cinema anyway but it's more because I feel I should have seen it rather then that I really want to see it
-
actually its both for a good film. You create the rich world as efficiently as possible. and what was so unrich about tolkien that you had to add an hour of extra footage that was not in the book?
I accept other people enjoy this sort of epic thing, maybe even really enjoy it.
Doesn't make it right in my eyes though. For me it will always be overindulgent dross.
You keep enjoying them though because who am I to tell you what you should like.
Is suppose i just enjoy the long film experience.I like the extra stuff, not because i feel that the hobbit needed it but because i think it adds some extra fun.
But as you said, we aren't here to try and make each other switch opinions. :)
-
Regarding the new LotR miniatures, I had a look at White Dwarf today and some of the photography in the article covering the Barrels out of Bond set is pretty poor, another hint at GW not being really bothered about the range?
Regarding falling asleep at the cinema, I went to a midnight screening of the last Harry Potter film after a heavy shift at work and crashed out just before the big climactic fight. Not money well spent.
-
I am here to change opinions!!!
Heath Ledger as the joker. NOBODY SAW THAT COMING fans complained till the heavens were almost brought down and now some of those same people wear shirts with him on it!!
Prejudice is poor for movies, tv shows, books and people. Give it a shot and THEN tell me why you don't like it. It might be terribly over done hog wash or it may be the relighting of a new generation of fantasy lovers in the youth of today!
Also I am totally playing around and trolling because I had a bunch of coffee this morning!!!
;D
-
I am here to change opinions!!!
Heath Ledger as the joker. NOBODY SAW THAT COMING fans complained till the heavens were almost brought down and now some of those same people wear shirts with him on it!!
Prejudice is poor for movies, tv shows, books and people. Give it a shot and THEN tell me why you don't like it. It might be terribly over done hog wash or it may be the relighting of a new generation of fantasy lovers in the youth of today!
Also I am totally playing around and trolling because I had a bunch of coffee this morning!!!
;D
Well, somethings amiss because all you deliver is a bunch of platitudes. :)
-
My wife told me yesterday "if you want Tolkien read the books - he didn't make any movies. Peter Jackson made the movies so he has every right in the world to do what he wants with them and in them". There isn't much arguing with that logic, I suppose.
-
My wife told me yesterday "if you want Tolkien read the books"
I saw Waterstones had nice new hardback editions of The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings on display. ;)
-
Stop complaining. The studios could've added car chases and guns to spice it all up.
Or vampires. What, there were some in old Reuel's world?
Well teen vampires then.
-
and teen werebears?
-
Would it be hot teenage vampire cheerleaders :-*
-
As Long as they don't shine like diamonds in the sunlight.... [making various gagging noises in the Corner...]
-
Stop complaining.
And here I was all ready to let the thread be, until I read that...
The studios could've added car chases and guns to spice it all up.
Instead they added shield-surfing, dwarf-tossing, horrible mischaracterisation... and Orlando Bloom. ;)
-
well its not all other sides of the room. I loved apocalypse now redux. I didnt fell like I was there for 3 hours though. Blade runner directors cut is the better film. (it and dune were from an era where the producer had too much power so they were cut down too far sometimes to make it easy for movie theatres and TV to show them.)
I would have really enjoyed a longer Dune movie (I own the extended cut). I really liked the aesthetic that Lynch created but too much was left out. I liked LotR but it is sometimes unnecessarily long.
-
I would have really enjoyed a longer Dune movie (I own the extended cut). I really liked the aesthetic that Lynch created but too much was left out. I liked LotR but it is sometimes unnecessarily long.
More Sting.
That is all.
-
More Sting.
I thought Bilbo's sword was in both film series?
-
I'm sure it wasn't in the "Dune" movie. But that singer of the same name was. lol
-
I saw the Desolation of Smaug yesterday. Quite good. The GW releases are accurate to those depicted in the movie. can't wait to see their ( probably uber expensive) Smaug.
-
(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/640x360/legacy/clip/p008tvfb.jpg)
"Smaug ... Smaug ... Smaugheeeaaad."
-
Saw it today, sad case that I am. Enjoyable popcorn movie, loosely based on the Tolkien novel of the same name :D
If you hated Legolas and his "elf physics" in LotR, there's a lot more of it here. I thought it was fun, but there were points in the movie where there was just too much happening to take in.
The spiders and barrel chase (I know there wasn't a barrel chase in the book...) were fun and Bombur is a badass orc-killer. Beorn is great (dangerous and powerful and sad) and not as naff as the GW sculpt, Thranduil is creepily distant, Bard is a diamond in the rough.
Smaug is just brilliant on his pile of gold (literally a mountain filled with the stuff), although his dialogue wanders off into Action Movie Baddie cliche when the movie goes off-script. They do a good job of tying him into the plans of Sauron, and a lot of people are explicitly sucked in by the glamour of the gold.
Evangeline Lilly is good as Tauriel, Kili HAS to be for the chop in the last film now that he has a love interest...
Big new sections in Laketown and Erebor. Dol Guldur is pretty cool.
Without spoilers, the figures COULD be great - possible new orcs in battle armour, a new orc leader, and Beorn in bear-form could an amazing mini. That Vendel mini I listed for Beorn a couple of pages up could be a good man-form for him - the character is very, very tall...
Everything to play for in the last movie!
Easter egg - Peter Jackson is the first person's face you see on screen.
-
What does Smaug look like - two legs or four?
Is there an existing dragon figure (e.g. Reaper) that looks the part?
-
What does Smaug look like - two legs or four?
Is there an existing dragon figure (e.g. Reaper) that looks the part?
First question - 4 legs, with the wings attached to his forelimbs.
Second question - no idea. I have a Macfarlane red dragon that's good enough for me (4 legs + 2 separate wings).
-
Evangeline Lilly is good as Tauriel, Kili HAS to be for the chop in the last film now that he has a love interest...
Easter egg - Peter Jackson is the first person's face you see on screen.
SPOILER ALERT! He doesn't make it in the books either lol
I saw that too!
My main criticism is the elves have too large a part but its hard to argue with the gorgeous Tauriel.
The scenes that show where Gandalf went ( don't want to spoil it) instead of Into Mirkwood was nice to see as that's what was alluded to IIRC.
-
Smaug is just brilliant on his pile of gold (literally a mountain filled with the stuff), although his dialogue wanders off into Action Movie Baddie cliche when the movie goes off-script.
This is my one real criticism of the Lord of the rings films. I find the dialogue of Tolkien to be very rich, full of subtle humour ("If in doubt young Merriadoc, always follow your nose") and somehow very convincingly oldy worldy.
For example, when Bernard Hill is saying the elogy to his dead son, in the film he ends it with some words of Hollywoodese, which kind of spoils the moment for me. Some times they just seemed to omit things almost for no reaon, like "oaths you have taken, to lord and land" and not mentioning "league of friendship". Maybe they wanted to make the Rohirrim have a more fuedal mentality than Tolkien ascribed too them i dont know.
That being said, I thought they did a good job with capturing the sense of menace of Sauron (the bit where Frodo climbs to the hilltop after escaping Boromir and then sees the eye was just how I remeber picturing it when I first read it as a teenager. Unfortunately that was the only such moment, because the only other things I remembered clearly from the book were tom Bombadil rescuing them from the barrow, Aragorn telling tales about Gil Galad and Beren and Luthien, Glorfindel confronting the ringwraiths, and Faramir being generally heroic, all of which were omitted. In fact, some time after my first reading of the book I remained with the impression that Gil Galad, Tom Bombadil, Beren and Luthien and Faramir were the main characters, which is obviously not right upon a rereading of the story, but perhaps does reflect the way that Tolkien really was as interested in telling us about people nothing to do with the action as those directly involved.) and some of the characterisations and acting were very nice, and the first bit of film 1 in the Shire, with Bilbo's birthday and so on, was just magical. Most of the stuff which was modified to suit the big screen seemed to work out nicely and the whole thing was a grand spectacle.
Like others, I like the attempts they made in the first Hobbit film to tie it in with unfolding events in, with Gandalf meeting up with the White council and so on. Ties it innicely with the Lord of the Rings films. This approach of inventing stuff to fill in the gaps seems to work well rather than strictly following the book, since it seems Tolkien did not quite have Middle Earth formed so completely worked out when he wrote the Hobbit (or maybe he did but just left the details aside since it was aimed at a young audience). The king of the Elves did not yet have a name, and the world was referred to more as if it was our world in some fictional past rather than Middle Earth and so on. Although the first Hobbit film didnt have the same magic as the LoTR trilogy, (or the LoTR cartoon or Born of Hope, which I also thought was also excellent) I shall probably go and see the second film.
About the Citadel offerings, not really my cup of tea. The elves seem to be a bit to fancy and excessively dynamic, like they are dancing around and cant stand still to save their lives or something. Generally the citadel LoTR range seems nice and not too OTT, at leasst the metal stuff that i have seen, although my small LoTR collection is mainly Thunderbolt Mountain stuff, which are marvelous and quite cheap too- perhaps a bit small and fragile for gaming, but look nice on the shelf.
-
I'm holding on for a trip with the kiddies to see the film just before Christmas :D
On the figures, I'm glad we got the inevitable pricing comments out of the way early, but they look pretty normal for GW (NFGW) lol lol
I like what they've done with the elves, but think Beorn is a missed opportunity.
I'm not sure that I'll buy any though, as we've yet to paint up the box set from last year :o
-
SPOILER ALERT! He doesn't make it in the books either lol
WHAT!!!! YOU'VE RUINED IT FOR ME!!!!
lol
-
Managed to catch the first showing yesterday and loved it.
Sure there are differences from the book, but it was a really enjoyable movie and definitely made up for some of the failings of the first one.
without giving too much away i'll say these things:
(not sure if spoilers so don't blame me if i ruin it for you, i have warned you)
Thrain is pretty much left to the imagination, so i imagine the miniature is for a specific scenario.
Beorn is done well despite not being in it for very long, but long enough that we understand him and set him up for the third movie.(did make me wonder why tom bombadil couldn't be put into the LoTr extended edition tho.)
the elf king (i wont bother trying to spell the name) is genuinely quite creepy and full of character.
legolas and the elves were important, but not fundamental to the plot and so they didn't feel too shoehorned in, and the scenes with the elves were pretty fun.they move like i imagine elves would, and even tho there were a few moments where i thought "that's just silly" it didn't detract from the experience.
the movie is a bit darker in tone than the first one which for me is a big plus, but it still manages to be funny in parts.
The necromancer is done AMAZINGLY. you really get that he isn't just a man or a wizard but is something MUCH more.much better than the way sauron was handled in LoTr.
Smaug is great.chews the scenery alot (sometimes literally) but really well done.
The ending will piss you off big time.you'll know why when you see it, but you'll also know that the third one will be an amazing experience when you consider how it has to start and end.
-
Saw it today and loved it - great action movie !
-
... with Gandalf meeting up with the White council and so on. Ties it innicely with the Lord of the Rings films. This approach of inventing stuff to fill in the gaps seems to work well rather than strictly following the book, ...
'
Ah, but it's not 'invented'; the whole sideshow with the White Council and the Necromancer of Dol Guldur is described in the appendices of LotR, and I actually expected some of the material therein to be used when The Hobbit was turned into a film. It's just so logical to do so.
I haven't watched either of the films, yet, actually I think I'm going to wait until I have all 3 of them in the Extended Version ::)
-
I re-watched the first one this weekend and, maybe it was the fact I was in a better mood, maybe it was the amount I'd had to drink BUT I actually liked it a lot more than I did initially. To the extent that I am willing to give number two a go. I also have a massive urge to paint some Dwarf rangers now too. Next 28mm project may have just sourced itself. Fingers crossed for some Christmas money lol
-
I re-watched the first one this weekend and, maybe it was the fact I was in a better mood, maybe it was the amount I'd had to drink BUT I actually liked it a lot more than I did initially. To the extent that I am willing to give number two a go. I also have a massive urge to paint some Dwarf rangers now too. Next 28mm project may have just sourced itself. Fingers crossed for some Christmas money lol
If you didn't like the first one you should see the second one anyway.it's much better.
-
I saw the second film last night - absolutely brilliant :-*
The story does not follow the book exactly, rather embellishes it with extra detail and action.
I think I will have to go out and buy some new Hunter Orcs and Mirkwood Rangers now.
The model for Smaug is going to be a meter long... :o
(goodness knows what that will cost from GW)
Mick
-
I saw the movie this evening, having caved in and bought a bunch of new Elves with my birthday money a week or so ago...
It's been years and years since I read the book, but clearly lots was added. Without spoiling anything for anyone, the following bits stood out:
Big scrap between Orcs and Mirkwood Rangers - kick-ass!!!!!
Spiders...as an arachnophobe, that bit was creepy!!!
Thranduil...very good! Typically aloof Elven king! His palace is beautifully rendered.
Dol Guldur...very good!!!
Smaug...he's...er...rather a little on the large side!!!!! I shudder to think what it'll cost to buy a model of him when/if GW make one the right size!!
Overall, 2hrs 40mins flew by! Great stuff, in my humble opinion! However, if you thought the first film was overdone on the 'extra bits' and the 'gung-ho' action, and hated it for those reasons, then don't bother going to see this one!!! ;)
-
I saw the second film last night - absolutely brilliant :-*
The story does not follow the book exactly, rather embellishes it with extra detail and action.
I think I will have to go out and buy some new Hunter Orcs and Mirkwood Rangers now.
The model for Smaug is going to be a meter long... :o
(goodness knows what that will cost from GW)
Mick
Which is why i think theyll make him as a head/claws/tails with no body, like the watcher in the water model.
-
Just came back from watching the movie. That is an awesome dragon, no doubt. I guess they are going to make the model a lot smaller than it should be because.... wow, he is so huge (and I mean the dragon).
I liked the Legolas Story line but PJ has one thing I don't particularly care about: special effects. As usual he just has to overdo it. I'm okay with most of the changes as the characters are really gaining from some of the changes. But I had hoped that he would then concentrate just a little more on real character play rather than have this huge number of one more Special effect and one more chase scene. My wife asked in one scene "Why are they chasing this guy now?" and all I can think of was "so they can have another chase scene". Apart from that a nice movie to watch. Definetely worth seeing again.
And I want those elven ranger. They were just so cool.
-
Whilst watching the film I couldn't work out if GW or a video game had been bourn in mind, what with all the added skirmish and chase sequences, I thought: "wow there certainly are more fights in this than I remember", then I saw Smaug and thought- "How can GW make that" and then if they make it, "How many houses will have to be mortgaged to pay for each finecast fingernail?"
This release, more like this dribble is such a disappointment. :(
-
Whilst watching the film I couldn't work out if GW or a video game had been bourn in mind, what with all the added skirmish and chase sequences, I thought: "wow there certainly are more fights in this than I remember", then I saw Smaug and thought- "How can GW make that" and then if they make it, "How many houses will have to be mortgaged to pay for each finecast fingernail?"
This release, more like this dribble is such a disappointment. :(
Maybe they're saving it all for the battle of five armies so they can break the world record for number of bankrupted wargamers?
It does strike me as odd that there is no official model yet for beorn as a bear or for the new orcs.(or to a lesser extent for the new amazing version of sauron,but i suppose it's hard to sculpt a disembodied presence )
-
I would imagine with the Battle of 5 Armies that the inevitable sourcebook will contain scenarios based on segments of the battle, a bit like the Dimrill Dale scenarios in the DoS sourcebook... Still scope for spending too much money though as there'll no doubt be lots of new Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, etc...
-
Maybe they're saving it all for the battle of five armies so they can break the world record for number of bankrupted wargamers?
First the final film was supposed to be due out this Christmas, then next summer, now it's going to be next Christmas. I believe a lot of the merchandisers were caught on the hop. GW has already released Thrain, who was in Dol Guldur in the expanded story, but not in the film. And the visuals for Bolg have been changed completely since last year. So in this instance, I think GW have, for once, been given the shaft by an even bigger corporate entity. I also believe the price of the toy licences was astronomical compared to the LotR films.
So I imagine they have a kickass Battle of Five Armies boxed game sitting on hold for another year. If there's any justice in the world, both the final film and the GW models will be epic.
Tempted by both a Mirkwood elf force and a hunter orc/warg force...
-
Enjoyed the movie and first thing i did when i came home was think of buying some figures for it. I then opened the site and liked the figures....i then seen the price and closed it again. Shame
-
Which is why i think theyll make him as a head/claws/tails with no body, like the watcher in the water model.
There's a full model now of the watcher in the water
(http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2210333a_99811499006_WatcherWaterCFC02_445x319.jpg)
-
Enjoyed the movie and first thing i did when i came home was think of buying some figures for it. I then opened the site and liked the figures....i then seen the price and closed it again. Shame
This is ultimately what will kill the game. If it doesn't do well, GW will blame everything except the prices. I will no doubt spend some of the film (when I see it) thinking of what forces to buy to wargame Middle Earth once more, but then I will remember the utter piss-take prices and be put off again!
-
I really liked the film. Took my wife to see it last night (my 2nd time).
I kept thinking that Tauriel is my daughter when she's a little older. She's 6 now, Tauriel is 600. I'll give her time...
The elf king was magnificent, Legolas looked very different, somehow, but did a great job, and I loved Tauriel, even though she is non-cannon.
Bejorn was great and I loved what he represented. I did not like his makeup, though. I thought that detracted from an otherwise perfect character.
I didn't understand the Elves' goofy helmets nor the humans' goofy pointy helmets. Those looked silly.
Similarly, some of the orcs and their armor/clothes looked a little silly or overplayed. That's forgivable since they did a magnificent job, otherwise.
It really looked like the GW designers were involved in the movie, or vice-a-versa. Bree looked very Empire, and the different kinds of soldiers, props, and animals looked somehow very GW. Not that that's a bad thing.
I wanted to get that Tauriel mini for my daughter and paint it up but at $40 GW can go f*** themselves. So, I got a Tiriel from Hasslefree, 40mm tall, dressed as a knight with a long sword. My girl will be at least as happy and, while pricey, I don't feel insulted by the nice people at HF.
I haven't purchased a new GW mini for years, since the Black Templars got their updates. Since then, GW's prices per mini have been ridiculous. The company has become so crass that I just feel insulted by them.
I can find equally cool (or better) minis from Hasslefree, Bob Murch, Copplestone, Artizan, and especially Musketeer Minis, as well as used ones on Ebay or from some of the very nice people on this forum.
-
Heresy's Elf Ranger figure (Shae) would be a good Tauriel, and she costs £4.00:
http://heresyminiatures.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_82&products_id=210
I plan to stock up on Thunderbolt Mountain figures when I'm next in the States.
-
This is ultimately what will kill the game. If it doesn't do well, GW will blame everything except the prices. I will no doubt spend some of the film (when I see it) thinking of what forces to buy to wargame Middle Earth once more, but then I will remember the utter piss-take prices and be put off again!
It's ok all they kids parents must keep them afloat ha
-
Heresy's Elf Ranger figure (Shae) would be a good Tauriel, and she costs £4.00:
http://heresyminiatures.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_82&products_id=210
I plan to stock up on Thunderbolt Mountain figures when I'm next in the States.
Great idea!!!!
-
Great idea!!!!
Free PDF with the stats and point values for all models including heroes and soldiers (good and bad) on the gw website! Saved mine before they decide this wasn't a good idea regarding their printed book sales. ;)
-
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat970001a&categoryId=8000001a§ion=&aId=29900002a
Contains all the stats from last year's Hobbit rulebook. Nothing for Desolation of Smaug yet.
All those old LotR stat PDFs are still there, you just have to know what the name of the file contains. Do a search on Google using:
site:www.games-workshop.com pdf <keywords>
and fill your boots!
Of course, the LotR stats are not the final versions in the 5 latest army books (if you care about that kind of thing), but the vast majority are fine.