Orcs and the "gamefication" of Middle Earth

[Hobgoblin]

Tolkien was notoriously vague in his descriptions of the orcs - even in how they were named, never mind how they looked. It's just that artwork that was around in the 70's and 80's has been taken up as the look Tolkien intended (after he was dead mind you, so no chance of corroboration). That art was then made into minis and suddenly they are the one, true way to sculpt orcs/goblins.

These sculpts might match some of the artists impressions from the 70's and 80's, but whether that makes them close to the literature is pure speculation. I wish people would stop claiming that sculpts match his vision, when the only clear thing is that nobody has a clue what his vision was.

The thing is, I don't think that those early Tom Meier orcs are based on any particular bit of 70s art (I could well be wrong!) - and they certainly aren't based on 80s art! But they do seem to be very closely based on Tolkien's descriptions. Indeed, it's hard to see anything about them that contradicts those descriptions. So, if we take that not-Mordor orc I posted above, it has short legs, long arms and a large head (see descriptions of Grishnakh and Shagrat); a scimitar (passim); a bow on its back (The Land of Shadow and passim); a mail coat (passim); a helmet with a nose-guard and maybe even a round badge on the front (The Tower of Cirith Ungol); heavy shoes (several places, e.g. The Uruk-hai); and short stature (lots of places). There's not much else to the model but those things!

And look at this chap!



As a not-Isengard uruk, he's again almost nothing but the book descriptions: short, broad-bladed sword; shield with a small white hand in the centre; heavy mail; long arms; thick legs; a  big head; short stature (though bigger than most of the other orcs); and - and this is a great little detail - the S-rune for Saruman on the front of his helmet - just as described in The Departure of Boromir. His archer companion is an ugly figure even by these relatively primitive standards, but sure enough, he has a long bow that's as tall as he is.

In both cases, I can't think of any particular illustrations that inspired these figure. I'd love to seem them if they exist, but I don't recall seeing that S-rune, for example, anywhere in an illustration; there is, though, an old Asgard orc miniature that has it too. I can, however, identify lots of textual support for the details.

It's interesting (at least to me!) that these really old figures get the textual details right in a way which the 80s Mithril range didn't. If you look at the Mithril Isengarders, it's quite easy to point out details that don't match the text (height, lack of shoes, relatively small heads, curved swords, etc.), as well as lots of similarities with contemporary illustrations (especially Angus McBride's). But I don't think that that's the case with these older figures.

Why? My guess is that by the 80s, Tolkieniana had taken on a life of its own, so that sculptors and illustrators were influenced by the amount of non-text-based stuff floating around. One example would be the Tolkien Bestiary. It's got great illustrations, but it's full of information that looks like research but was actually dreamed up by David Day. When you've got huge books to plough through (and no internet!), it's all too easy to assume that the various published Tolkien 'experts' have done their work.

There's a side-note to all this, though. I like fanciful Tolkien illustrations (e.g. Ian Miller's and Roger Garland's) - indeed, I much prefer them to more "realistic" ones like John Howe's. And, equally, I like fanciful interpretations in miniature. And, to a very small extent, I and many others interpret things fancifully when painting up miniatures. A good example would be with shields. If I'm painting an orc of the Red Eye, I'm going to give him a red and yellow eye on his shield, just to look better. And I'd create more elaborate banners than I imagine Tolkien would ever have conceived of. And the same can apply to miniature sculpting too, obviously.

But part of the fun of the miniature hobby is finding or converting or painting models so that they fit source material - whether it be historical or the liveries in GRR Martin's indices or whatever. This whole thread is just an attempt to show what riches there are lurking in the depths of Tolkien's works - riches that gamers and model-makers and painters have often overlooked.

 

[jamesmanto]

Those North Star chaps look not bad.
Not keen on the shields but that's an easy fix. I prefer round or kite shields not odd shapes.

[Jacksarge]

Looking forward to the North Star goblins too, I don't normally go in for plastics, but will make exception for "goblin hordes" 
Doing my Dwarves in metal from Conqueror Models plus NS metal command.
Some great posts @Hobgoblin, very thoughtful, please continue 

[majorsmith]

I'm hoping they look great when assembled, love the shields too, and it's nice to see scimitars goblins look great with them

[Paboook]

The comparison photo with plastic dwarf suggests the goblins are smaller than humans. So looking very promissing indeed 

[Paboook]

First unit pictures from Northstar:

[Cubs]

They do look good. Sadly, possibly too good to resist ... sigh ...

[majorsmith]

Very nice indeed!

[westwaller]

They look good, I hope the orc archers can be put together so that the arrow is on the other side of the bow though...   

[Captain Blood]

They remind me of the orcs in the 1970’s Saul Zaentz Lord of The Rings movie...

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

They look good, I hope the orc archers can be put together so that the arrow is on the other side of the bow though...   

I am probably wrong, but I thought I read that only modern bows had the arrows on the inside of the bow and traditional bows had the arrow on the outside of the bow.

In any case.  Nice orcs and dare I say it "they look like prper Tolkien orcs".

[Hammers]

They are not shit. But I do have a problem with multipose miniatures. It is very hard to hide that stuck-on look of the arms with makeup.

[Hobgoblin]

They look pretty good to me. One quibble might be that the two-headed axe and the mace look like two-handed weapons being held in one hand - so they look a bit odd with shields. I'd cut both weapons down below the grip, I think - and probably cut down or replace the heads of both.

I've already been eyeing up a kitbash with the Frostgrave barbarians and soldiers sprues to create Isengarders with short, broad-bladed swords and long bows. And I think there might be some useful crossover with the Frostgrave gnolls.

Hammers, that's a good point. One thing I've noticed, though, is that manufacturers often try to stretch the poseability a bit in photos - as with the bow held aloft here (look at the angle of the sleeve). I suspect that more subtle variations in pose will help here; the gnolls were pretty good in this regard.

[Cubs]

I am probably wrong, but I thought I read that only modern bows had the arrows on the inside of the bow and traditional bows had the arrow on the outside of the bow.

I was thinking that the arrow isn't on the wrong side, so much as with the angle they're being held at, it would have fallen off!

[Severian]

Looking pretty good, I'd say. Lots of kitbashing potential too.

But yes, those arrows could well fall off...

My understanding is that the arrow to the right rather than the left of the bow is not so much ancient rather than modern, but is a particular style of shooting usually associated with horse archers and recurved bows. So it's right for the shape of the bows here - the arrow is usually braced on by a thumb or fingers of the left (leading) hand. This bracing may not be too obvious here but that's probably a function of the hefty width of your average 28mm arrow...

OK, that's more than enough bow nerdery from me for one morning.