Cheers Phil. Although some people do contest I am making up those "facts"...

And on the poor quality sculpts issue, its really surprising given that the Perry twins were involved.  A VERY rare misfire for them i feel...perhaps its the source material that's at fault (the goblin design looks odd)?

Do we know Mike and Alan were involved for sure L ?
I haven't dug into this in the slightest...So I've no idea.
The only 'rumour' that got passed on to me, from old contacts, is that there was a demand that the faces on the characters were done by a specified sculptor who didn't 'belong' to GW any more....and they had to 're-hire' him for the project.

As far as I know, all of this could all be complete and utter Hogwash.....Who knows ??
I get a small amount of 'inside' information....and I'm never sure I believe it.
At best, by the time it reaches yours truly. it's probably third hand ....at the very least !

Cheers - Phil.

Quote from: Techno on 12 December 2012, 03:55:53 PM
Do we know Mike and Alan were involved for sure L ?

They're listed in White Dwarf as being involved, with a few other sculptors.

As mentioned at the start this was not a dis for GW but more a why are things different, unless of course there have been some rapid and vast mutations in the 60 years between the Hobbit and the Adventures of Frodo. one nice if that is the right word is Gloin's war axes are the ones Gimli uses in the LOTR.
the other thing I notice from the stills are that the dwarves seem taller, stupid thing to say I know, but if you look at Gimli he seems  shorter and squatter, however Thorin and company only look shorter if they are stood next to Gandalf etc, otherwise they seem proportioned as a standard human (which strangely enough they are)

Yep - not convinced that these are Gobbos - much more like post-apocalyptic mutants...



If I end up playing any of this, I'll use my Moria goblins I think...

For me these are ghouls.

I will not be buying any of this junk however   I'm pretty sure we can play whatever we want with our current figures and rules

I did think about my One Ring games until I saw them and then thought nope- ebay here I come, Again the figures are based on the film, but why the pale, sore covered and mishapen lumps. Not that big a geek but from what I remember then both the Moria and Misty mountain goblins werent well renowned for their summer hols to a sun drenched beach.
oh no off on a rant again

Quote from: nikharwood on 12 December 2012, 09:36:57 PM

Looks like Keighley on grab a granny night

Oh....

I've not seen them blown up to that size.

.....Agreed....Not very keen on the look....I think the assumption would have to be that's the look the film makers were after.....It would be their train set.
Did I read somewhere (again something to be taken with a pinch of salt)  that the figures had to be sculpted much more quickly than normal, because of some sort of time constraints ?
There would be a possible answer.

Like I say....I DO like the character models (NOT the price though).....But I'm even less keen on the trolls than I am on the goblins....Again that'll probably be down to the film concepts.
Anyway.....Let's hear what someone thinks of the film itself, when someone has the chance to go and see it.

Nosher. !!

Cheers - Phil.

They do look very Ghoulish to me and dare I say it rushed sculpts. Not a patch on the previous LoTR ranges.

Yep....
Far more 'ghoulish' than 'goblinoid'...to this old f*rts eyes
Cheers - Phil.

Yes really can't get to the same level as the older ones. If you look at the rohirrim of the two towers set, they are just full of movement. These look like the statues at madame Tussauds...

But i have to admit, if you look at this trailer, they look quite like the movie versions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hy6O682OGI

I have not embedded it for peope who don't want spoilers :p

Quote from: petercooman on 13 December 2012, 06:54:54 PM

I have not embedded it for peope who don't want spoilers :p

hopefully they havent read the book either , but based on what I have seen so far then that doesnt actually matter either

Quote from: Techno on 13 December 2012, 09:06:12 AM
Oh....

Anyway.....Let's hear what someone thinks of the film itself, when someone has the chance to go and see it.

I got this from the one ring forum:
This movie is really a deliberate prequel to the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, rather than a straight adaptation of The Hobbit itself. It's narrative is designed in exactly the same way, relying heavily on backstory. The tone is pretty much the same while the characters largely correspond with the same archetypes - whereas Thorin is presented in the book as a slightly comical, pompous figure he's basically a 'True King' figure, like Aragorn, here. There is also a lot of visual and thematic references to Rings movies - a lot more than in the book, which reflects on the fact that The Hobbit was written way before Lord of the Rings came out, making such references pretty pointless!

The movie is long, like the original Trilogy, and ponderous in parts, although the action sequences, effects and amiability of the characters make up for it. For those wishing to explore the fuller reaches of the Middle Earth world, then this is the movie for them. New beasties, like Stone Trolls, Goblins (with a pretty good Goblin King), Spiders, Wargs (more wolf-like than before) Stone Giants and a Dragon are mixed with new characters and places. Radagast (the Brown Wizard) isn't quite as annoying as some have argued, although he is played for laughs. The visuals are a step above anything seen in the Rings movies too.

I questioned the need for a 'Trilogy' being made from such a short book, but in fact the narrative worked here, in and of itself, is as effective as what we saw in the original Trilogy. Taken as a movie in itself, without reference to anything else (hard I know), this movie is still light years ahead of any other fantasy franchise out there. As for the 3D and frame rate, I had sore eyes after nearly 3 hours of wearing glasses. Just sayin'.

People always complain that films leave stuff out of their favourite books. People complained that LOTR left stuff out and changed parts of the story as a consequence. Now people are complaining that the film is going to have stuff that wasn't in the book.

I don't think the film makers can win this one.

I notice also that The Hobbit is being released in 3 formats:

24fps
24fps 3D
48fps (it was filmed in this)

You know...i rarely go to the cinema in any case (cannot stand all the chatter, mobile phone abuse, etc.), but its becoming far too confusing now.

Quote from: Paint it Pink on 14 December 2012, 10:19:00 AM
People always complain that films leave stuff out of their favourite books. People complained that LOTR left stuff out and changed parts of the story as a consequence. Now people are complaining that the film is going to have stuff that wasn't in the book.

I don't think the film makers can win this one.

The film makers are going to make a zillion bucks out of this franchise. That's pretty darn close to winning, I think. 

Quote from: Paint it Pink on 14 December 2012, 10:19:00 AM
I don't think the film makers can win this one.

Yep I think you're right. I'll watch the film and hope I enjoy it in its own right. However I don't think filmmakers can ever win - I don't recall ever seeing a film that did justice to the original book (I think the mediums are just too different). There are some great films derived from books (e.e. Bladerunner) but they often deviate from the novel. Even a great film series like the LOTR trilogy pales significantly compared to the version that's been in my head for nearly 40 years now.

Quote from: goat major on 15 December 2012, 10:56:19 AM
Even a great film series like the LOTR trilogy pales significantly compared to the version that's been in my head for nearly 40 years now.

That is SO true !
The films never quite live to the images you have in your own mind do they ?.....

A handful of films I've seen have had massive input from the writers.....Whose written work I've thoroughly enjoyed !
On seeing the films, I've often sat there and thought.....No, no, no, no, no,....Character X doesn't look or talk like that....Such and such a place is completely different !...etc etc.

On re-watching the films I've almost always found them great...but if I re-read the books, I still think of the characters as 'my versions'.
Anyone else feel the same ?
Cheers - Phil.