"It's Just Nostalgia!"

[Hobgoblin]

It's about what you want I suspect...

To me there no more "fun" goblins/orcs than the once OOP Der Kriegspieler "smiley faced" ones that are now sometimes available (just received an order) and none that I think best represent [book] LOTR than the old day "Goblins of the North" era figures.  YMMV.

I don't care if the later stuff is "better art" or more technically creative.  The above hit the sweet spot for me.  Even the recently reproduced Chaos War Orcs  do not do it for me the same way - selling off the ones I received with the KS plus my old ones - because, as good as they may be, they simply leave me cold.

Does that mean there are no really good figures today?  No.  There are many good figures available today.  And I buy them at times, when they meet what my expectations are.

I agree with all that (and I'd love to see some of those Kriegspieler orcs painted!), but I'd also add that sometimes cruder miniatures are better art. There are plenty of miniatures out there that are well sculpted millimetre by millimetre, but are unimpressive, poorly conceived or just flat-out vulgar. And then there are some simpler, cruder figures that are just better conceived. By no means always, of course, but there are plenty of both sorts out there.

Also, relatively crude figures can sometimes offer a lot of potential for painting. Look at what John Blanche did with this Minifigs giant.

[mcfonz]

Ok. So I found wargaming at middle school ages around 8-9. Although I didn't start gaming at that moment 90/91, some of the miniatures caught my eye.

The screamer killer from the nid range for example.

Nostalgia for me is an odd one. I struggle to see the appeal in the old 70's/80's miniatures, technically most really look dated. But I don't have a memory or attachment to that time. I don't think it unfair to say that nostalgia has a lot to do with liking them. It also shouldnt be negative to say so, after all what you are saying is that they have sentimental value.

There are defenitely some 90's minis I still love and prefer over modern versions. Imperial guard is a good example. Give me the metal catachans over the standard plastics every time.

But then I suspect the games 5 or so years younger than me will think how I do of the 80's but of the 90's and am I being tainted by nostalgia?

I do think there are better modern hw minis as well. The space marines are as good as they ever been. The new skellies are better proportioned etc.

[Hobgoblin]

Nostalgia for me is an odd one. I struggle to see the appeal in the old 70's/80's miniatures, technically most really look dated. But I don't have a memory or attachment to that time. I don't think it unfair to say that nostalgia has a lot to do with liking them. It also shouldnt be negative to say so, after all what you are saying is that they have sentimental value.

I agree with you that nostalgia isn't necessarily a bad thing. But, again, I think large numbers of old miniatures aren't dated at all. I posted the photo below in another thread. The old (early 80s) orc isn't the best in that range, admittedly, but to me it looks a hell of a lot better than the current GW orc, which looks crude, cartoony and like an action figure in comparison.

I can't find the thread, but Cubs posted a brilliant set of C15 armoured orcs a few months ago. They looked so much better than the current GW orc units - more naturalistic posing, much more variety and just better sculpted all round.

Also, look at Spooktalker's orcs here (bottom of the page). Some of these are later, more cartoony ones from the 80s, though some are earlier Perry ones. Compare them with the (by definition pro-painted) ones on the GW site. Are the current GW ones better? If so, how? Which would you rather see on a tabletop?

[Andrew Rae]

I think it's worth pointing out that the current GW plastic orcs are somewhat dated themselves, being at least 16 years old and well behind modern GW plastic technology and design - the design in terms of how plastic figures go together rather than their aesthetics. So I wouldn't say the plastics represent the pinnacle of Brian Nelson-style orcs, but then there aren't actually that many rank and file figures in the range that aren't compromised in some way by the production method or the need for the very large figures to rank up.

Grimgor Ironhide and some of the other characters are suitably OTT, but if you don't like OTT and cartoony figures you're not going to like Brian Nelson-style orcs! It's all basically a matter of taste rather than nostalgia, surely?

Interestingly, GW should be releasing their AoS-ified orcs in the next couple of weeks. I think it's safe to say those will divide opinion too!

[grant]

I have some nostalgia for things, but having come to the conclusion that much of what I was saving was just taking up space, now that it's gone, I miss nothing really. I even sold my Golden Demon and the model. In the end it's just stuff.

I'm tempted by some old things - vintage Eldar being one - but what would I do with them? I liked 2nd edition 40k. Every edition after that did less and less until it wasn't fun. So the Eldar would just sit. Some of the Grenadier AD&D dwarf models do it for me too. But again, for what purpose?

Beyond that, I've switched from fantasy and scifi to historical gaming anyway. And smaller scales. Now I focus on what excites me today and not what did 20 or 33 years ago.

[Cubs]

I can't find the thread, but Cubs posted a brilliant set of C15 armoured orcs a few months ago. They looked so much better than the current GW orc units - more naturalistic posing, much more variety and just better sculpted all round.

Here they be!

http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=86251.15

I prefer the style of sculpt for the older stuff in general, but only in as much as I prefer the poses, the proportions and the variety. The finishing, the detail and the casting are pants compared to today's standards.

Everyone's got their own hook for the emotional response to whatever is their favourite. A chunk of mine probably is nostalgia, but not all of it.

[Hobgoblin]

Here they be!

http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=86251.15

Hurray - duly bookmarked!

I prefer the style of sculpt for the older stuff in general, but only in as much as I prefer the poses, the proportions and the variety. The finishing, the detail and the casting are pants compared to today's standards.

That's certainly true in general - though I'd question how much of it matters when the things are painted and on the table. Sometimes I think the older, rougher metal textures - like fur - actually works better than the equivalent in plastic. That's if those textures have survived the decades in a pristine state, which is quite another matter ...

And I don't think the detail point is always true (though it is true in general). Of the two orcs I posted above, the old one has much more detail and - importantly - much more interesting detail. Some of the plate armour is held on by rope; the armour is well rendered, dents, rivets and all, and the ears (for example) are much better sculpted than the blocky ears of the plastic orc. He also had a neat little design on his shield until I filed it off and filled it in a burst of misplaced youthful exuberance.

On finish, though, no argument at all. And on casting: older figures can be (and were back then) quite a lottery. The moulds must have been worked to death.

[Cubs]

And I don't think the detail point is always true (though it is true in general). Of the two orcs I posted above, the old one has much more detail and - importantly - much more interesting detail. Some of the plate armour is held on by rope; the armour is well rendered, dents, rivets and all, and the ears (for example) are much better sculpted than the blocky ears of the plastic orc. He also had a neat little design on his shield until I filed it off and filled it in a burst of misplaced youthful exuberance.

Yeah, but to be fair, that plastic 'modern' orc is from a set that is ... what, ten years old now? Something like that? It was definitely made during a time when GW (and others) were still way off the quality of finish in plastic compared to metal.

I would say that the level of detail achieved by CAD in today's good quality mins is superior. Sometimes with the old models it looks like things like chainmail were achiveved by the sculptor randomly poking with a toothpick every now and then. Not always, some was very good, but some was pretty shoddy.

Of course, that then opens up the debate about how much detail is necessary. I do agree that the GW designers these days rely way too much on detail and pushing the boundaries of the medium, instead of just good sculpting. The endless line of dudes leaping into the air, joined by one toe to a convenient rock are all very athletic and certainly show a design that couldn't be done in metal. But does that make it better? Rarely, to my mind. It feels like the sculptor has decided to go off on an indulgent guitar riff in the middle of a song, just to show what they can do, rather than wondering if it's what people want.

[Hobgoblin]

I think it's worth pointing out that the current GW plastic orcs are somewhat dated themselves, being at least 16 years old and well behind modern GW plastic technology and design - the design in terms of how plastic figures go together rather than their aesthetics. So I wouldn't say the plastics represent the pinnacle of Brian Nelson-style orcs, but then there aren't actually that many rank and file figures in the range that aren't compromised in some way by the production method or the need for the very large figures to rank up.

All true (though the one above came from a small box of four - is that more recent?). But we are comparing like for like: rank and file vs rank and file.

The ranking-up thing is a whole case in itself against more modern GW miniatures, I think. It's part of the shift from RPG-suitable to wargame-specific that was, to my mind, largely detrimental, entailing as it did more uniformity in gear, weaponry and stance. Oddly enough, the old ones all fitted on Warhammer bases fine - and looked a lot less cramped with it!

Which brings me to size: why did GW orcs get so big? Aren't/weren't they S3/T4, just as they were (or S2/TC, which was the equivalent in first edition) from the start?

Interestingly, GW should be releasing their AoS-ified orcs in the next couple of weeks. I think it's safe to say those will divide opinion too!

I daresay ...  

[Hobgoblin]

I have some nostalgia for things, but having come to the conclusion that much of what I was saving was just taking up space, now that it's gone, I miss nothing really. I even sold my Golden Demon and the model. In the end it's just stuff.

That's a very healthy attitude, I think.

I'm tempted by some old things - vintage Eldar being one - but what would I do with them? I liked 2nd edition 40k. Every edition after that did less and less until it wasn't fun. So the Eldar would just sit. Some of the Grenadier AD&D dwarf models do it for me too. But again, for what purpose?

Games! I've just acquired an old Ral Partha land dragon (late 70s? Very early 80s?), which will be seeing action on the tabletop as soon as I get it painted - perhaps even this weekend.

[Hobgoblin]

I would say that the level of detail achieved by CAD in today's good quality mins is superior. Sometimes with the old models it looks like things like chainmail were achiveved by the sculptor randomly poking with a toothpick every now and then. Not always, some was very good, but some was pretty shoddy.

I'm sure I read somewhere that that was the Citadel method until Tom Meier showed the Perrys his!

Of course, that then opens up the debate about how much detail is necessary. I do agree that the GW designers these days rely way too much on detail and pushing the boundaries of the medium, instead of just good sculpting. The endless line of dudes leaping into the air, joined by one toe to a convenient rock are all very athletic and certainly show a design that couldn't be done in metal. But does that make it better? Rarely, to my mind. It feels like the sculptor has decided to go off on an indulgent guitar riff in the middle of a song, just to show what they can do, rather than wondering if it's what people want.

Exactly - and some of the detail actually detracts from the painting opportunity (see that JB Minifigs giant above). There's something of a parallel with CGI battle scenes in films. Necessity is the mother of invention, which is why Kurosawa was able to suggest huge battles with a few score extras - and more convincingly than many modern directors can do with CGI. If there are fewer constraints, things tend to become less inventive.

In that regard, Vermis made a good point about Jez Goodwin's splendid Asgard orcs (shown here on Spooktalker's blog); he noted how so many of the spear-carriers are designed to avoid spears bending or breaking. It's certainly true, when you look at them, but It's really refreshing, in this age of multipart plastics, to see spears being held near the head.

And the Asgard orcs bring me to a point made at the start of this thread: the abandonment of the "pathetic aesthetic". Those Asgard creatures look wretched and dangerous, evil and cowardly all at once. They're not brimming with character because they're old; they're brimming with character because they were designed thus. (Won't someone implore, entice or compel Jez Goodwin to do orcs again?)

[Andrew Rae]

All true (though the one above came from a small box of four - is that more recent?).

They're the same basic figures, just in fewer parts and push-fit.

But we are comparing like for like: rank and file vs rank and file.

The ranking-up thing is a whole case in itself against more modern GW miniatures, I think. It's part of the shift from RPG-suitable to wargame-specific that was, to my mind, largely detrimental, entailing as it did more uniformity in gear, weaponry and stance. Oddly enough, the old ones all fitted on Warhammer bases fine - and looked a lot less cramped with it!

I agree, and I would say it's no small reason why Age of Sigmar is not a ranked up wargame; GW want to make statement models and that means the freedom to do any pose.

Which brings me to size: why did GW orcs get so big? Aren't/weren't they S3/T4, just as they were (or S2/TC, which was the equivalent in first edition) from the start?

Brian Nelson happened! I love his other work, but his style of orc (and ork) are just too big - they look out of scale with the rest of the GW range.

[Vermis]

I have to agree with Daeothar's second big post, again. But...

And if you're not going to exaggerate wildly, you have to compensate with good, subtle posing, which has been less than evident over the years (seriously, there's absolutely no reason to not use contrapposto on every single figure you sculpt - it's worked for thousands of years and is the easiest way of adding character, beyond straight up caricature. Come on!).

First, one point about all this is that, when it comes to the quality of miniatures, it's not necessarily chronological. Sculptors don't always improve... there are lots of small companies doing stuff that isn't as well sculpted - or even as modern-looking - as stuff sculpted in the late 70s. Plenty - indeed most - of the miniatures launched on Kickstarter are technically inferior to stuff Tom Meier was doing in 1979.

Second, it's really about sculptors and styles.

I don't think it's nostalgia that makes me prefer, say, Tom Meier's orcs of 79 to Mantic's orcs today: very few people would claim that the Mantic ones are superior creations.

Then there are the Perrys.

Now, when Citadel first introduced plastic shields and weapons (spears with hands attached, in the main), they talked it up as a chance to make miniatures with shields and weapons of "realistic thickness"... plastic promised convincingly sized weapons - but many firms have used it to produce miniatures with ludicrously exaggerated weapons ...

The second thing is that a lot of digital artists are avoiding the key foundations of art (honestly, the whole modern art movement as a whole has destroyed the concept of skill in art... but I digress) such as body language, muscle structure and the like. I'd say 99.9% of modern miniatures I see (that aren't goblins) have either an emotionless face or a shouty face. That's it. There's nothing inbetween.

Digital art and proper use of old art foundations leads to some wonderful work.

I would say that the level of detail achieved by CAD in today's good quality mins is superior. Sometimes with the old models it looks like things like chainmail were achiveved by the sculptor randomly poking with a toothpick every now and then. Not always, some was very good, but some was pretty shoddy.

Of course, that then opens up the debate about how much detail is necessary. I do agree that the GW designers these days rely way too much on detail and pushing the boundaries of the medium, instead of just good sculpting.

... all good points! Ones that've bothered me before. (And sorry for the huge quote block, but I think they bear repeating)
Although I'd say they still tie in to Daeothar's points about the progression of skill in individual sculptors and overall; maybe even how some modern sculptors use older, cruder sculpts as a benchmark or an excuse. Skill and knowledge in anatomy, posing and/or design seem to be an optional afterthought in some quarters, and sometimes it looks like the sculptor tried to disguise bad or okay-ish basics with a thick crust of details, or "it's fantasy!", or the fact it was done in a compootah.

And woe betide if you dare point it out. Mutter mutter.

Hobgoblin mentioned spears. I've been looking at GW's high elves recently, comparing old metals to plastic spearmen (about the same era as Brian Nelson's plastic orcs?) and the plastic sea guard from the 8th ed starter set. Compare the latter two:



Sorry for the small pic, but you can see how the hands attach to the spears.



Still some very slight issues with undercuts, and some hands still hold the spears perpendicularly (which is fine) but see how otherwise, the fingers wrap around the spear in a much more realistic, natural pose. It's only a wee thing, but one indication of how GW's designs have jumped forward in some respects, IMO. But many sculptors and producers, whether plastic or metal, are stuck in the ol' rushed-through, square-block-with-lines-scored-in for spear hands. Or worse, the wrist-broken-at-90°/wrist-attached-to-side-of-palm look. (Not to pick on Saxon Miniatures, but as a fairly new company it's a reasonable indication that the hand thing's not an old problem)

Hobgoblin also mentioned the Perrys. Reminds of something I noticed recently, over on Stuff of Legends. 1980 Perrys:



2010 Michael Perry:



To be honest I wonder which orc ran up and glued those cow horns to it's elbows and heels, but otherwise it's a huge progression in anatomy, design, execution and so on. It's luverly. But then you might expect nothing less from the Perrys, after thirty years.

While I'm at it, on the other hand, 1987 Trish Morrison:



2007 Trish Carden:



Practically no progression. In fact, I'd say the earlier rock dragon has more natural scales, and the weird pose provides a little more dynamism, at least. I'd guess she started off imitating the styles of Nick Bibby and Tom Meier (especially comparing his fire dragon to her fire drake), built on their flaws (yes, the flaws of Nick Bibby and Tom Meier!), and just kept going with that. I can honestly see very few other influences or references added to her 2-3 decades of dragons and other monsters.

For me any figure pre-92 was a near mythical thing of grainy images in the blue and red catalogues or the odd old blister on the rack in the local newsagents. All these weird and wonderful, unobtainable figures and what we got every month were fucking Gary Morley sculpts and mono-pose plastic tat! I used to wonder what the hell Jes Goodwin was doing as I'd seen from the catalogues he'd sculpted all these wonderful figures but here's more Gary Morley (looking back I see Jes was actually doing a hell of a lot, I just wasn't that interested in Eldar).

I think Gary Morley gets a bit of bad press. True, his models are very hit-and-miss (insert obligatory Nagash reference here) but to be honest, getting back to high elves, I'd rather use his archers. The flourish with the right hand may be less realistic, but overall I think they're less stiff and robotic, more organic than Jes Goodwin's (yes, the flaws of Jes Goodwin!) without sacrificing much detail or clarity, if any. I also think his white lions are nicer than Aly Morrison's, in the same way. (Biggest reason I don't use 'em, in a shoutback to Cubs' post, is that I guess the tippy-toes poses make the metal models a bit unstable if you snip off the slotta tabs and glue them to flat bases.)

[Andrew Rae]

I think Gary Morley gets a bit of bad press. True, his models are very hit-and-miss (insert obligatory Nagash reference here) but to be honest, getting back to high elves, I'd rather use his archers. The flourish with the right hand may be less realistic, but overall I think they're less stiff and robotic, more organic than Jes Goodwin's (yes, the flaws of Jes Goodwin!) without sacrificing much detail or clarity, if any. I also think his white lions are nicer than Aly Morrison's, in the same way. (Biggest reason I don't use 'em, in a shoutback to Cubs' post, is that I guess the tippy-toes poses make the metal models a bit unstable if you snip off the slotta tabs and glue them to flat bases.)

Can't agree at all, my good man! Morley is a journeyman sculptor entirely without any spark, in any area, that puts him above soul-grindingly 'passable'. Yes, he is to me what Trish Carden is to you, Warren.

I'd argue High Elf archers should be robotic; a highly trained machine block of troops. I don't agree they are stiff, at least in the context of 90s Citadel miniatures. By contrast, Morley's archers are doing what exactly? Dancing like a puppet extra in a Gerry Anderson nightclub? And contrapposto, Gary, contra-bloody-posto!

The Morrison White Lions aren't my favourite figures in the world, but at least the overly large weapons on those balance much more nicely with the rest of the figure than the equally large weapons on Morley's versions.

[Hobgoblin]

Inevitably, I think these Aly Morrison high elves are much better than either.    I've got the central chap on the painting table at the moment, and he's terrific:

http://www.solegends.com/citcat1984comp2/citcomp2052-01.htm

(I can't find a photo. But these guys are/were great. Just look at how much more imaginative they are.)