# The Hobbit release



## moshpiler (Apr 16, 2009)

Here's the link to the GW article:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp?pid=6000006

Personally, I'm not sure about those dwarves they look weird to me.
Probably has more to do with the movie versions looking strange than anything to do with the minis, 'cause they do look like very accurate representations.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Tell you what, all the models look a lot more detailed than the originals which is awesome. Goblins are pretty distinct when it comes to comparing them to the Moria ones to.


----------



## gwmaniac (Sep 1, 2008)

and the $60 goblin town is laughable, i could make the same thing with a box of matchsticks and some cut up tomb kings

and $75 for the white council?? wow.


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

What the fuck is GW Smoking for these prices????????


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Azkaellon said:


> What the fuck is GW Smoking for these prices????????


Nothing the accounting department isn't normally smoking.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Ugg already not liking how Jackson is fucking with the book. WTF ever happened to Saruman of many colors, and now he is still just white. They totally messed up his character, fairly sure he never appeared in The Hobbit and is just making an appearance so Jackson can make more money.


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

It says Radagast the Brown is limited edition. Anyone know how you get him? He's my favourite wizard! (did I really just say the sentance "he's my favourite wizard"?!)


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

TheReverend said:


> It says Radagast the Brown is limited edition. Anyone know how you get him? He's my favourite wizard! (did I really just say the sentance "he's my favourite wizard"?!)


Wasn't Radagast also released in the Lord of the Rings line as well? Probably easier to get that way.


Also... you did just say what you thought you said. :grin:


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Arcane said:


> Ugg already not liking how Jackson is fucking with the book. WTF ever happened to Saruman of many colors, and now he is still just white. They totally messed up his character, fairly sure he never appeared in The Hobbit and is just making an appearance so Jackson can make more money.


He didn't become Saruman of many colours until after he decided to throw in his lot with Sauron in lord of the rings, the hobbit is set before this, at least two human life times before it, since bard's grandson was king during the war of the ring and died at the gates of the lonely mountain.

It's possible they are including the siege of Dol Guldur in the hobbit it was explain why they are able to split it up into three movies.


----------



## yostu (Feb 19, 2010)

pffff in my opinion this will be like lotr.. another low-selling game, for few ppl playin it..
gw had to do this coice cause of commercial interest and accords with producers.. just for it..
i really dont think the I-WILL-TAKE-ALL-YOUR-MONEY gw would invest in this except for that..
the fans will apreciate, but in percentage, whfb or wh40k would be better invest


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Lord of the Rings made them a lot of money when the movies were coming out which was over several years, so it's not a bad investment.


----------



## khrone forever (Dec 13, 2010)

has anyone noticed that the music in the start is the same as the main music for WAR just slowed down a lot?


----------



## Turnip86 (Oct 7, 2011)

The goblins look so much like Ephialties from 300 it's stupid.

I don't know why they didn't go down the 'lets use this as a cheap introduction to wargaming and then rape the parents' wallets when the kids decide they want space marines'. At these prices I see fewer kids and 'new blood' getting into the hobby.


Oh, and I hate what Jackson's done to the dwarves - The ones that were the most 'minor' in the book seem to have gotten bigger roles purely from the way they look. 


Wow, all of those points sound like I really hate the franchise  (I actually don't)


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Words_of_Truth said:


> He didn't become Saruman of many colours until after he decided to throw in his lot with Sauron in lord of the rings, the hobbit is set before this, at least two human life times before it, since bard's grandson was king during the war of the ring and died at the gates of the lonely mountain.
> 
> It's possible they are including the siege of Dol Guldur in the hobbit it was explain why they are able to split it up into three movies.


Which is why it doesn't make sense that he looks the same in these movies as in the LoTR trilogy.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Why? He still looked white when he was "of many colours", all those colours came together and made it look white, it was only when Gandalf looked closer did he see the many different threads of colour.

Saruman should look exactly the same, just as how Gandalf looks exactly the same, they don't age and they tend to wear the same clothing.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Gah I'm watching the below video and I'm really really wanting the entire collection of dwarves just to paint.


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

You guys should read this months edition of Empire magazine, it's a Hobbit special and jam packed with interviews from all teh main charactors and Jackson himself. 

As a massive LotR and Hobbit fan I am really looking forward to the Hobbit films. I won't defend the intention to split it in to three films (seeing as LotR is 3 times longer and yet they made the same number of films...) but Jackson is adding loads of stuff from the silmarillion and unfinished tales in there to tie it in with LotR.

Lastly, when did 'lord of the rings' change to 'the hobbit' on GW's site? just noticed it this morning.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

I noticed the change Saturday Morning, they tend to do that a bit most changes/releases seem to happen on a Saturday.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Ahhh nice to see some forum rage again, heresy has been very dull this year without it! 
Models look good,very accurate to the film, price wise get over it,its a licenced product and a cash cow, and more to the point its a totally new system so you dont have to buy it,you cant even use the must update my army to stay current. Buy it or dont buy it, it will sell, the films will have people queing to get in and thank jackson for doing three films as thats three christmas movie trips for bits sorted out !
All in all whats not to like ? We get a plastic. Smaug ffs what more do we want ?


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I don't mind it, it reminds me of good times when it first came out.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Words_of_Truth said:


> Why? He still looked white when he was "of many colours", all those colours came together and made it look white, it was only when Gandalf looked closer did he see the many different threads of colour.
> 
> Saruman should look exactly the same, just as how Gandalf looks exactly the same, they don't age and they tend to wear the same clothing.


Well I am glad you didn't mind them completely leaving it out of the film because I did. Why? Because he -does- look different, even if it's only subtle. You may also want to reread the books because Gandalf changed his clothes after he was rerobbed in white by Galadriel. 

Jackson has a ton of errors and alterations in the film, the least of which is Saruman's clothing... just take Denethor's death for example which was changed for no reason. * D*


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Gandalf was only garbed in white when he was resurrected and replaced Saruman. You do know that the Hobbit takes place two human life times before Lord of the Rings, so none of these changes really matter? Jackson missed out or changed a lot of things for dramatic effect, and I did mind several parts, but as a former media degree student I understood why he did what he had to do.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Words_of_Truth said:


> Gandalf was only garbed in white when he was resurrected and replaced Saruman. You do know that the Hobbit takes place two human life times before Lord of the Rings, so none of these changes really matter? Jackson missed out or changed a lot of things for dramatic effect, and I did mind several parts, but as a former media degree student I understood why he did what he had to do.


Like I said, it sounds like it has been a while since you read the books. Gandalf was garbed in white after he was brought to Lothlorien and was wearing his new robes when he rejoined Aragorn and crew in Fangorn Forest. This was earlier than his arrivan in Rohan and then the return to Isengard in which he replaced Saruman. But you... do know that right?

As to why it matters... well, as a lover of the book and the collective works, it sucks to see things changed just to fill someone's wallets. Was it inevitable? Yes. Do we have to be happy about it? No.


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Yes...but he was resurrected after fighting with the Balrog and made more powerful so that he could replace Saruman who'd fallen into evil. I don't understand what you're getting at, the hobbit is different to lord of the rings, it's earlier. Also please stop telling me to re-read the books.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Arcane said:


> Like I said, it sounds like it has been a while since you read the books. Gandalf was garbed in white after he was brought to Lothlorien and was wearing his new robes when he rejoined Aragorn and crew in Fangorn Forest. This was earlier than his arrivan in Rohan and then the return to Isengard in which he replaced Saruman. But you... do know that right?
> 
> As to why it matters... well, as a lover of the book and the collective works, it sucks to see things changed just to fill someone's wallets. Was it inevitable? Yes. Do we have to be happy about it? No.


If jackson had stuck the the books version of the story it would have been a 9 hour snoozefest.


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

Arcane said:


> Like I said, it sounds like it has been a while since you read the books. Gandalf was garbed in white after he was brought to Lothlorien and was wearing his new robes when he rejoined Aragorn and crew in Fangorn Forest. This was earlier than his arrivan in Rohan and then the return to Isengard in which he replaced Saruman. But you... do know that right?
> 
> As to why it matters... well, as a lover of the book and the collective works, it sucks to see things changed just to fill someone's wallets. Was it inevitable? Yes. Do we have to be happy about it? No.


I'm a big fan of both the books and the films, and I was a big fan of a lot of the changes that were made. As much as Tolkein was a great world builder, as a writer his pacing is all over the place - mostly so that he can add long passages in that add flavour to the world, in some cases entire chapters of the book that don't really add anything. This is why Jackson and the other writers reordered and skipped big chunks of the books when adapting them.

The films needed to be focussed down to a few core storylines - what was happening to Frodo and the Ring, and what was happening to seperated members of the fellowship... a lot of detail got missed out by necessity and some characters were changed a fair bit (Denethor one of them) to provide suitable degrees of conflict and peril within each story. Maybe not a purist approach, but one that makes the films good in their own right.

The Hobbit being a trilogy... well that's also a necessity. Have you read the Hobbit recently? Where in LotR, there are many expanded and inflated unnecessary sections, the Hobbit has large parts that are completely glossed over. Fine for a book aimed primarily at children, but would make for a strangely paced and unsatisfactory movie. And that's without taking into account the LotR appendice material that's being added in to fill in details (such as why Gandalf keeps dissappearing and why he was going into strange castles in Mirkwood and finding dwarves locked up in the first place).

I'm not sure I get your point about Gandalf's clothes though - yes, he was regarbed in white at that point in the books. He was regarbed in white when he met Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli in the movies too (which still takes place before they travelled to Edoras, Helms Deep and them travelling to Isengard).

But on topic....... I think the models coming out for the hobbit look good, and accurate to the preview pictures from the movie (more so than the Fellowship from the Mines of Moria box did anyway). Shame the Goblin Town scenery set looks quite expensive for what you get - from the White Dwarf scans, I'd hoped it was all included (although the scenery bit you get in the box still looks a good size).


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

I had a strong feeling Dol Guldur would be included in the movies at some point, to link the hobbit with lord of the rings would mean it had to be.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Words_of_Truth said:


> Yes...but he was resurrected after fighting with the Balrog and made more powerful so that he could replace Saruman who'd fallen into evil. I don't understand what you're getting at, the hobbit is different to lord of the rings, it's earlier. Also please stop telling me to re-read the books.


Seemed like you might need a refresher -_^ 
Point was you said they never changed and always wore the same things, so I just pointed out several examples that they indeed -do-. 

Of course the movies needed to be altered to fit in a ~2 hour film, but why have a character jump off a cliff while on fire instead of burning on a pyre? They would both take the same amount of time to do in the film but it was changed for no reason, and that's just one of many issues. Where the fuck is Tom Bombadil? Guess he wasn't even worth a mention in Peter IwasFatbutMadeAbunchOfmoneyandGotLypo-Jackson.

I can only guess Pete is friends with Mat Ward. opcorn:


----------



## Words_of_Truth (Sep 20, 2007)

Someone dying on a pyre isn't exactly dramatic, in fact it's pretty grotesque, him throwing himself over the side was a lot more dramatic and a lot more definite rather than questioning as to why the guards didn't just put the pyre out. 

When I said they never changed, I meant they over the long years they never did, they only changed when something dramatic happened, such as Saruman turning evil, and Gandalf being "elevated" so that he could cast out Saruman as the head wizard in middle earth.

As for Tom Bombadil, in the making of the lord of the rings, it was explained why he wasn't included, they reasoned that although they would of loved to of included him, he did little to further the overall story and so rather than include him and waste time on not furthering the story, they instead briefly referenced what happened with Old Man Willow when Merry and Pippin stayed with Treebeard.


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

wow...the prices are drunk! Not a surprise but...definitely they are not going to see my wallet open.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Wow, Arcane. I know you sometimes come out with retarded comments, but I didn't know you that much of a cunt. Really? You are insulting the guys size in an attack against stylistic changes made so that the generally fucking stupid uneducated and uncultured people who have not read or remembered every single passage of your favourite book. What a complete and utter twat.


----------



## Imwookie2 (Jul 14, 2010)

$75 for 4 miniatures.....$60 for two small spurs of scenery.....lol these prices are a joke. I was kind off excited for these miniatures to come out but after looking at the prices I find myself once again disappointing by GW. Their greediness and their complete lack of respect for their costumers astounds me.

They certainly wont be getting any of my money for this stuff.

BTW: Bits none of us care about your opinion about GWs prices its very clear that you are just a GW crony.


----------



## seermaster (Feb 22, 2012)

there not as bad as they were suposed to be acording to rumors


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

You are talking about a lack respect, imwookie2, and then go on to do exactly the same?

This russian guy seems to have fucked with a few peoples attitudes. Heresy used to be able to
actually say your opinion freely, but also be trusted to be with self moderation. If this carries on, I might fuck off to warseer for a bit. At least I expect twattish behaviour over there.


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

Imwookie2 said:


> $75 for 4 miniatures.....$60 for two small spurs of scenery.....lol these prices are a joke. I was kind off excited for these miniatures to come out but after looking at the prices I find myself once again disappointing by GW. Their greediness and their complete lack of respect for their costumers astounds me.
> 
> They certainly wont be getting any of my money for this stuff.
> 
> BTW: Bits none of us care about your opinion about GWs prices its very clear that you are just a GW crony.


In the UK pricing it works out about £11 a model... which is about standard for an individual finecast model at the moment. Likewise, the scenery isn't any more of less overpriced than any other set GW have brought out. Feel free to not spend your money on it - no one is holding a gun to your head about it.

BTW: your opinion is worth more no more than Bits' opinion is. This is a forum, people will say what they think - some of them might even stick up for GW now and again... shouldn't be too surprising for anyone since this is supposed to be a forum for people who are fans of their games.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Vaz said:


> You are talking about a lack respect, imwookie2, and then go on to do exactly the same?
> 
> This russian guy seems to have fucked with a few peoples attitudes. Heresy used to be able to
> actually say your opinion freely, but also be trusted to be with self moderation. If this carries on, I might fuck off to warseer for a bit. At least I expect twattish behaviour over there.


Ah good old self Moderation.......I wouldn't mind if the personal insults were curbed. Thanks


Now, what was I gonna say....something about the White Council...HOW MUCH! Not really, as has been said already it's on par with current pricing.

On a more serious note the Goblin what ever the hell that duckboarding is meant to be really is taking the piss.


----------



## Imwookie2 (Jul 14, 2010)

EmbraCraig said:


> In the UK pricing it works out about £11 a model... which is about standard for an individual finecast model at the moment. Likewise, the scenery isn't any more of less overpriced than any other set GW have brought out. Feel free to not spend your money on it - no one is holding a gun to your head about it.
> 
> BTW: your opinion is worth more no more than Bits' opinion is. This is a forum, people will say what they think - some of them might even stick up for GW now and again... shouldn't be too surprising for anyone since this is supposed to be a forum for people who are fans of their games.



Comparing a set of miniatures to a single miniature is unfair. A better comparison would be finecast sets that also have more the one miniature in them....which for the most part run about $45....and most of those have more then 4 miniatures in them.

As to what I said to Bits, I never said he didnt have a right to his opinion I just stated that myself and im sure more then a few others dont rightly give a shit about it. As Bits runs a business that is directly influenced by GW its no surprise that every time some one has a complaint about GW (especially the pricing) he runs to their aid. but just like i dont care for Bits opinion im sure he doesnt care for mine......but as he has a right to state his I also have a right to state mine.....and if you dont like it thats fine too.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Imwookie2 said:


> BTW: Bits none of us care about your opinion about GWs prices its very clear that you are just a GW crony.


damn! the cats out of the bag chaps,hes figured me out!well played sir well played,yes i have vested interest, yes my opinion is heavily biased and influenced by what i do for a living, but that doesnt invalidate what i say, If anything the price of anything GW produce affects me more than it does anyone on this or any other forum, every time a price goes up or anytime a new kit is released with a perceived high price i have to deal with it directly, so yes i do defend the prices but thats because so far i haven't seen any kit not sell because of its price.

but on a more pleasant note, 8000 posts over nearly 5 years and i have to say i think this is the first time i have been referred to a as a GW crony.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Everyone also have the right to keep your opinions to themselves, but very few people seem to remember, let alone exercise it. Don't even consider using Free Speech as an argument.


----------



## Imwookie2 (Jul 14, 2010)

Vaz said:


> Everyone also have the right to keep your opinions to themselves, but very few people seem to remember, let alone exercise it. Don't even consider using Free Speech as an argument.



A piece of advise you should consider using yourself before preaching it to others. See your first post on this thread were you call some one a twat and a cunt.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Vaz said:


> Wow, Arcane. I know you sometimes come out with retarded comments, but I didn't know you that much of a cunt. Really? You are insulting the guys size in an attack against stylistic changes made so that the generally fucking stupid uneducated and uncultured people who have not read or remembered every single passage of your favourite book. What a complete and utter twat.


Lol glad to see you're back Vaz. Yep, I wish that donut disposal machine never made a single film. /myvagina



Imwookie2 said:


> BTW: Bits none of us care about your opinion about GWs prices its very clear that you are just a GW FANBOY.


There I fixed that for you, and someone with a monetary interest in the success of GW products to boot. However, I hate it when someone says that another isn't free to voice their opinion, which Bits certainly is free and welcome to do!

Whatever we all think, the sales of Hobbit figurines will speak for themselves and as is usually with GW LoTR stuff, I'm sure it will be embarrassing.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

So I hate to say I told you so but... wait nevermind, I do like saying it...

...but there are articles popping up all over about how the Hobbit isn't as much of a success as everyone expected it to be. 

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/12/editorial-did-gw-hitch-themselves-to.html

The good news is that GW didn't invest as much into their model line with the Hobbit as they did with LotR and may not loose _too_ much money on those box sets which are going to be collecting dust for a long time on hobby store shelves. 

The bad news is that they invested in it at all and possibly took away focus and resources from their flagship games like 40k and WHFB.


----------



## Svartmetall (Jun 16, 2008)

_*reads*_

Er...did I just go on to Warsneer by mistake?


----------



## Child-of-the-Emperor (Feb 22, 2009)

@Arcane: If you had researched the films (both LotR and the Hobbit) to see why they made the changes that they did (the answers are out there) you may be less skeptical. Don't just rage because Jackson chopped and changed a lot of stuff, which in itself was necessary.

I guarantee that Jackson's "Rings" trilogy wouldn't have been half as entertaining (or appealed to as many people) if he had just religiously followed the books. Thats not a dig at Tolkien at all, but things have to change in order to successfully adapt books into films - especially books the length and scope of Lord of the Rings. As _Words_ said, Tom Bombadil's scene would have done absolutely nothing to further the plot in the first film and therefore would have increased it's length unnecessarily. Glorfindel was replaced by Arwen in helping Frodo reach Rivendell for the film, presumably to avoid introducing a character that need not appear again and to further the Aragon/Arwen plot. 

See, there are justifications for all of Jackson's alterations - many of which Jackson has explained personally. You love the books, we get it. But you have to realise that for a film adaption, such changes were necessary.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

well i think bols needs to do some fact checking, the first hobbit movie has already pulled in close to $700 million worldwide in two weeks, fellowship only managed $870 million in its life time and that wasn't during a recession , granted hobbit has inflation and 3d premiums, but its a good movie and people are going to see it and likely some are going to go back and see it again (i know i am), as for sales of the game??? who knows what they are currently,but after watching the movie im quite tempted to pick it up as im now familair with the who and what and why fors of the movie rather than the book, l think the hobbit could even be better for GW in many ways as the films are much less serious in nature and work for a younger audience which is GWs target market after all, Lotr was a much more serious in its outlook but still managed to capture plenty of new players for GW. I dont think i matters too much if "the forum" dwellers pick up the game or not, most people on forums claim to be a blister pack away from bankruptcy anyway so starting up a new game system isnt likely to be high on there agendas regardless of the success/failure of the movie , GW and the hobby at large needs new blood and like it or not GW are doing the right thing latching on to the new trilogy and if any company had any sense they would be doing the same for the up coming star wars trilogy, movie tie ins are big business and really pull people to a product, my wife for example had no interest in Lego(my other hobby) until Lego put out lord of the rings and hobbit lego, now she has a lego mines of moria and gandalfs cart.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Well I am sure I can guess where some folks hung out during the Russian hacking deal. 

You all realize that the studio originally only watched to give the entire LotR saga 1 movie, Jackson pretty much lied his ass off in a week long gambit to trick the studio to agree to three movies? 

Arcane, maybe I am mistaken, but last I checked this is a miniatures forums, we're we talk about little plastic soldiers, not have mile long discussions about how inflamed your vaginitis has become because they changed things from the book to the movie. 

Anyways while some of the models are expensive, they do look awesome. I would not mind some of the dorfs to paint up, when I find time to actually paint.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Hey, we can all talk about little plastic men if you want, no one asked you to comment on a related movie/miniatures thread if you don't want to. So if it's not something you want to discuss, then by all means *don't*. I'm sorry if I insulted your personal friend Pete Jackson but regardless it's my opinion, no matter how unpopular it may be, and doesn't solicit unwarranted flaming on your part. 



bitsandkits said:


> well i think bols needs to do some fact checking, the first hobbit movie has already pulled in close to $700 million worldwide in two weeks, fellowship only managed $870 million in its life time and that wasn't during a recession , granted hobbit has inflation and 3d premiums, but its a good movie and people are going to see it and likely some are going to go back and see it again (i know i am), as for sales of the game???


Keep in mind that the Fellowship was the first film and each successive film used it as a spring board for success. No one really knew what to expect with the first film and by the time that we get to The Hobbit as we are now, the franchise has already been developed. Each 12 year old kid who didn't know what MiddleEarth was when The Fellowship was released is now an adult who is buying tickets to go see The Hobbit because they got hooked on the franchise. A lot of people probably bought/pirated dvds of the first several films after the hype drew them in. Additionally The Hobbit has a considerably larger budget, both for the film it's self but for franchising and promotion.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Arcane said:


> Ugg already not liking how Jackson is fucking with the book. WTF ever happened to Saruman of many colors, and now he is still just white. They totally messed up his character, fairly sure he never appeared in The Hobbit and is just making an appearance so Jackson can make more money.


Um dude, this is a miniatures thread you decided to make about the movies. 

I know after just finishing the film there are several of the models I would love to paint up. I really have no ambition to play but maybe a scene with some of the characters would be neat.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

djinn24 said:


> I know after just finishing the film there are several of the models I would love to paint up. I really have no ambition to play but maybe a scene with some of the characters would be neat.


I'm the same actually, no desire to play what so ever and theres not enough money in the world you could pay me to paint any of the Goblins but I would like to do a little diorama of Bolg fighting young Dwalin at the battle of Moria Gates, possibly with young Balin and young Thorin in the background.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I would love to do the scene at the cliffs where they are starting each other down.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Thorin and Thrandruil? Yea its a pretty cool scene, be one hell of a build though!


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

The above comments illustrate the exact point I was trying to make. I feel that GW made a poor financial descision by investing in the Hobbit miniature line due to lack of interest from the market. Many people think about buying the models to maybe paint up, but few do and in the end you wind up with a poorly selling model range and a game system which very few people bother playing. 

That's my opinion, it's not meant to start an argument, just expressing it as is relevant to miniatures and wargames. :hang1:


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

Arcane said:


> The above comments illustrate the exact point I was trying to make. I feel that GW made a poor financial descision by investing in the Hobbit miniature line due to lack of interest from the market. Many people think about buying the models to maybe paint up, but few do and in the end you wind up with a poorly selling model range and a game system which very few people bother playing.
> 
> That's my opinion, it's not meant to start an argument, just expressing it as is relevant to miniatures and wargames. :hang1:


The problem is that the opinion is based on nothing more than guess work - you don't know any of the important facts that you'd need to make any sort of imformed opinion on the matter: How much the license cost them, how much the development costs were, or what the sales figures are.

All of the new releases seem to have been very well received on the forums related to the LotR games (other than the normal grumbling about pricing), and I suspect the sales may well be higher than a lot of folks around here think they are. GW always seemed pretty happy with how well the LotR lines did, even though the opinion of everyone on Heresy, BolS and Warseer seemed to be that no bugger ever bought them.

Even if it's a relatively unsuccesful line, it's not likely to be catastrophic enough to send GW down the tubes... hence, if you're not interested in buying them that's fine, but it's unlikely to have any more impact on you than if GW had spent the time developing an army you didn't want to buy.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

They probably already have the license or at the least under contract to produce the models stemming back when they worked the original deal out a while back. Go to a US games day and see some if the things set up for LOTR, they are HUGE. thousand dollar tables etc.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

EmbraCraig said:


> The problem is that the opinion is based on nothing more than guess work - you don't know any of the important facts that you'd need to make any sort of imformed opinion on the matter: How much the license cost them, how much the development costs were, or what the sales figures are.
> 
> All of the new releases seem to have been very well received on the forums related to the LotR games (other than the normal grumbling about pricing), and I suspect the sales may well be higher than a lot of folks around here think they are. GW always seemed pretty happy with how well the LotR lines did, even though the opinion of everyone on Heresy, BolS and Warseer seemed to be that no bugger ever bought them.
> 
> Even if it's a relatively unsuccesful line, it's not likely to be catastrophic enough to send GW down the tubes... hence, if you're not interested in buying them that's fine, but it's unlikely to have any more impact on you than if GW had spent the time developing an army you didn't want to buy.


There is no problem with any opinion, because like all opinions, it's subjective. If you have a problem with it, that is unfortunate, however differing opinions are the source of change and life. 

Information? We do not need hard sales numbers and profit margins to see that the LotR and Hobbit model lines are a failure. Just use your brain. There are barely any discussions about the actual game on any wargame forums, and when there are it's a small dedicated subforum which accounts for a tiny percentage of the conversation base. Any hobby store you go into, you'll see they carry a very small range of the minis compared to other games such as 40k, WHFB, WM, Hordes etc. Additionally these models tend to collect dust and sit on the shelves for months. 

But hey, I could be wrong. It could very well be that there is a huge market for LotR/Hobbit wargames out there. The player base must just not be into discussing it on the internet, or going out to hobby centers and playing, or holding events, or buying the models in person. Maybe they are ninjas and we just never see them because of ancient martial secrets which allow them to blend into the shadows while they secretly organize matches in their homes over SMS devices and messenger pigeons. Or it could simply be that I'm right and the game is a dud which very few people buy into and even less play. 

Who said anything about GW going down the tubes? No, The Hobbit isn't going to break them. I was just making an observation that it's poor business tactic on their part. Unfortunately what the models have succeeded at are emulating the changes in the film from the book which were made to make a more marketable product - turning once interesting characters into action heroes and then, even more unfortunately, action figures.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

you cant use the amount of discussion on any given forum as accurate evidence of anything, the vast majority of GW and wargamers dont vist forums like this, Most gamers and hobbists enjoy there hobby and dont need to ruin it by listening to alot of the negative shite that gets posted on boards like ours.To be honest part of the reason many Lotr player stay clear of boards is most likely the negativity directed towards the game by non-players, dont get me wrong im not a fan myself and would much prefer to see a return to the specialist games of old, but im also a realist, the original franchise did do well for GW and we owe alot of the current plastic range expansion and development to the success of the company during the high flying Lotr sales times.

Millions of people have been to see the movie, many of them will be Geeks and Nerds, Many of those Nerds and Geeks will be socially awkward pre teens who will get a kick out of pushing mini versions of what they saw on screen around and rolling dice or staying couped up in there bed rooms painting by lamp light while dreaming of kissing Galadrial or Kili, those people are the future veterans who in 20 years will be on forums like ours bitching about the good old days when you could buy Lotr models from the local GW store and not have to 3D print them in expensive moon dust.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Cool story BK!
So maybe you guys are right. In that case how about you show us some photos of your LoTr armies Bk? Djinn? Ember? No, neither of you have LoTr armies you could show off like all your 40k stuff? Perhaps Bits and Kits could tell us about his booming business in hobbit and lord of rings bits. No? Can't say you sell a lot can you? Hmm... 

...or maybe very few people actually buy the stuff, including you guys. Maybe Gw has some faulty business practices like missing out on the holiday season by releasing a dud like the Hobbit instead of sticking with their flagship and selling tons of Dark Angels stuff for Christmas. It`s the same logic that charges 15 dollars more for a red paint station over the black one for no reason or doesn't offer a codex for an entire model range for no good reason...


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Arcane said:


> It`s the same logic that charges 15 dollars more for a red paint station over the black one for no reason



You mean the one that comes with a cutting mat, 2 water pots and two pallets which the black one didn't?
That said working in pound sterling if you buy the black one and the mat,pots and pallets separately you save £1.50, so that's £1.50 worth of red or limited editioness, whichever you prefer. 

Black Paintstation £20.50
Water pots x2 £7.00
Cutting Mat £ £7.00
Pallet X2 £4.00

Total £38.50

Red Paintstation £40.00


Play nice everybody and keep it on topic.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Arcane said:


> Cool story BK!
> So maybe you guys are right. In that case how about you show us some photos of your LoTr armies Bk? Djinn? Ember? No, neither of you have LoTr armies you could show off like all your 40k stuff? Perhaps Bits and Kits could tell us about his booming business in hobbit and lord of rings bits. No? Can't say you sell a lot can you? Hmm... THe vast majority of LOTR and Hobbit range is basically snap fit or single pose one piece minis... theres not actually any bits to sell so whats your point? How is B&K supposed to sell bits for a range that has no bits to it... sure he could sell single minis but with the exception of heros which you usually pick up singularly anyway... whats the point. Do I know where all the LOTR players are? Nope, hell I don't know where all the 40k and WFB players are either, going by the amount of hate for GW online you'd think they had gone out of business long ago
> 
> ...or maybe very few people actually buy the stuff, including you guys. Maybe Gw has some faulty business practices like missing out on the holiday season by releasing a dud like the Hobbit instead of sticking with their flagship and selling tons of Dark Angels stuff for Christmas. It`s the same logic that charges 15 dollars more for a red paint station over the black one for no reason GW has been carrying and promoting the LOTR's range since what 2002? When the first film came out, thats over 10 years now, you really think that GW; a company which gets a lot of flak online for being money hungry, that introduced a policy to stop 3rd party cheap online stores selling minis to the southern hemisphere to stop shops down here loosing money, a company that has price rises every year, you think they are going to carry, develop and promote a range for 10 years that nobody plays or buys? A range that isn't their own and costs them license fees? If that was the case they wouldn't have supported the Hobbit when they got the chance, they would have got the hell out. Did they? No...or doesn't offer a codex for an entire model range for no good reason... Yea and lets be honest here, that what this is half about to you, half about PJ not making films exactly like you imagined and half about the fact that you think that if GW didn't support LOTR/The Hobbit then maybe you would get your Sister's codex. Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't but getting all angry over the Hobbit an't going to make it come any quicker.


Replies in yellow.


----------



## Turnip86 (Oct 7, 2011)

Arcane said:


> Cool story BK!
> So maybe you guys are right. In that case how about you show us some photos of your LoTr armies Bk? Djinn? Ember? No, neither of you have LoTr armies you could show off like all your 40k stuff? Perhaps Bits and Kits could tell us about his booming business in hobbit and lord of rings bits. No? Can't say you sell a lot can you? Hmm...
> 
> ...or maybe very few people actually buy the stuff, including you guys. Maybe Gw has some faulty business practices like missing out on the holiday season by releasing a dud like the Hobbit instead of sticking with their flagship and selling tons of Dark Angels stuff for Christmas. It`s the same logic that charges 15 dollars more for a red paint station over the black one for no reason or doesn't offer a codex for an entire model range for no good reason...


If it generates profit it's not a failure in GW's eyes. You have to think of it from the point of view that no matter what, the films generate interest in the world of Tolkien and a miniature line will sell if people come across it whether they be veteran players or people who've never heard of tabletop wargaming.

Now for the important bit - if GW hadn't bought the licence, chances are someone else would've or, there would be no miniatures at all. A different company getting the licence would have (probably) ended with an inferior product purely because of the size and resources of the design studios in other companies doesn't really come close to GW. 

The other option of there being no licensed game would mean all the 'geeks and nerds' would miss out on the awesome models and I'm sure a lot of people would be asking why there was no game made and that it was bad business sense not to cash in on the LotR/Hobbit bandwagon.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Viscount Vash said:


> You mean the one that comes with a cutting mat, 2 water pots and two pallets which the black one didn't?
> That said working in pound sterling if you buy the black one and the mat,pots and pallets separately you save £1.50, so that's £1.50 worth of red or limited editioness, whichever you prefer.
> 
> Black Paintstation £20.50
> ...


You mean these two that are the exact same thing but cost differently?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat470006a&prodId=prod1390056a

vs 

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat470003a&prodId=prod1760022a

Oh wait, they just discontinued the black one for a price hike and have the red in limited edition, even better! lol


Turnip86 said:


> Now for the important bit - if GW hadn't bought the licence, chances are someone else would've or, there would be no miniatures at all.


Better off that way, instead focus on fixing the things messed up by 6th ed 40k and updating decade old models.



Jacobite said:


> Replies in yellow.


See above. It's not just SoB that needs to be redone. Even fairly new lines like Space Wolfs became outdated and irrelevant as soon as 6th edition hit. Unless your codex says BA, GK, SM, CSM or Necrons you are in need of attention from GW for updates. They did it with FAQs in WHFB but for some reason the exec team seeing over 40k didn't drink their coffee that day and missed the memo about updating old models when a new edition hit. Flakk missiles, what's that??? 

And additionally yes, I do think that GW would keep making LotR and Hobbit even if they didn't sell well. GW's retailers are obliged to order 4k in new product yearly. GW can keep making crap like The Hobbit minis yearly because they will always sell them if shops want to carry their product. Of course shops could just choose not to order any LotR products but if they are new models they might be missing out... and years later those same models are still collecting dust. There would be a bits market if anyone bought or collected them. There are sets and snap fit or not you would get bits that people wanted and ones they did not. But hey maybe the LotR/Hobbit Ninjas just never think outside the book, just like they don't buy in person, or play in person, or discuss the hobby online... bit like Sasquatch they are, but you'll tell me he exists next too.


----------



## Jacobite (Jan 26, 2007)

Arcane said:


> Rules wise I can't really comment on why 6th edition needs to be fixed but from what I've seen online theres not a over whelming amount of hate about it. As for fixing codexs... always going to happen even if they dropped WFB, its like the Fife Bridge, as soon as they finish updating them for one edition they will have to go and start again due to creep. Thats life, just because they have 3 ranges rather than 2 isn't actually going to fix the problem for good, might lessen it sure dropping the Hobbit like a hot frying pan an't going to solve it. As for new minis, that comes down to taste a lot - Abaddon for example, classic mini that doesn't need to be redone, its been the same mini ever since I started back in the late 90's. Mutilators... barely even 90 days old and need to be removed, burned and redone. Sure some ranges need attention but like codexs its a never ending circle.
> 
> And additionally yes, I do think that GW would keep making LotR and Hobbit even if they didn't sell well. Thats makes zero sense at all, GW aren't going to continue selling and supporting a product that doesn't sell well especially one that they have to share the profits on. As a sisters player I would have though you of all people would know that GW's retailers are obliged to order 4k in new product yearly. GW can keep making crap like The Hobbit minis yearly because they will always sell them if shops want to carry their product. Of course shops could just choose not to order any LotR products but if they are new models they might be missing out... and years later those same models are still collecting dust. What about GW stores themselves then, surely they aren't just going to keep ordering LOTR minis in if they aren't selling, now I don't go down to my local GW that much but I'm pretty sure last time I went there wasn't a massive surplus of LOTR minis taking up half the store because nobody was buying them and nor was their a massive bonfire out the back burning them eitherThere would be a bits market if anyone bought or collected them. There are sets and snap fit or not you would get bits that people wanted and ones they did not. When was the last time you bought a isolated bit from a snapfit model? I never have and doubt I ever will because the chances are I'll never need too, if the entire range is snapfit or single minis theres not a huge amount of room to actually convert for the average modeller and the guys who do, chances are know what they are doing and will scratch build But hey maybe the LotR/Hobbit Ninjas just never think outside the book, just like they don't buy in person, or play in person, or discuss the hobby online... bit like Sasquatch they are, but you'll tell me he exists next too. I've already said I don't know where they are, I don't game a lot if at all so I wouldn't know where they play if they play at all, I don't know where 40k and WFB players play either, the majority of the community could be aimed more towards collecting.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

They have at least 2 more years of xmas hobbit releases to go with the movie hype. You might as well give up on your rant and deal with it. They do not care that you do not like it or hate what Jackson has done with the movie. They have a deal with the movie makers for exclusive rights, they are going to ride that pony until it falls over dead then charge some more for the corpse. 

As to the rant of how they should have spent all that time and money on making all armies up to date to 6th ed. Why? They can just release new models that take advantage of the new rules. The older models will still sell, and it forces people to buy new plastic crack. GW is in this for the money, they will not make it easier to keep reusing older models that are all over Ebay and the bits sites. 

Will I be buying any of the product line? Nope, while spiffy and all I already have enough on my plate with what I plan to do with 40k stuff. I plan to take advantage of the ally system and have a small army of each codex. I don't have the income to branch out into another game system with that on my plate.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

scscofield said:


> They have at least 2 more years of xmas hobbit releases to go with the movie hype. You might as well give up on your rant and deal with it. They do not care that you do not like it or hate what Jackson has done with the movie. They have a deal with the movie makers for exclusive rights, they are going to ride that pony until it falls over dead then charge some more for the corpse.
> 
> As to the rant of how they should have spent all that time and money on making all armies up to date to 6th ed. Why? They can just release new models that take advantage of the new rules. The older models will still sell, and it forces people to buy new plastic crack. GW is in this for the money, they will not make it easier to keep reusing older models that are all over Ebay and the bits sites.
> 
> Will I be buying any of the product line? Nope, while spiffy and all I already have enough on my plate with what I plan to do with 40k stuff. I plan to take advantage of the ally system and have a small army of each codex. I don't have the income to branch out into another game system with that on my plate.


Yeah I agree with you. Obviously I was just venting my opinion and didn't mean to spark some argument with all of Heresy lol. Nothing I say is going to change their business practices. You reminded me though that it is really sad we have 2 more years of Hobbit Xmas releases which will pale in comparison of sales to if they released a proper WHFB/40k Dex "on time". Looking forward to that being over with. 

And yeah the whole nerf carnifex/monoliths to sell more of the next newest shiny plastic is unfortunate but an unavoidable part of the GW plan. 

I guess the best any of us can hope for is just that they continue releasing at a relatively quick pace so many of the old stuff get's redone before another decade goes by.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Arcane you don't read too well do you? 

They were not the exact same thing, If you had bothered to look you would have seen, but no, you had to focus on your need to bitch and whine instead.

For fuck sake, I even broke it down item by item and you still managed to miss the fact it includes £28 of other bits so was therefore £1.50 more.

So no, *Not* Exactly the same.


The fact GW have dropped the black one is erroneous as well Arcane.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat470006a&prodId=prod990078a


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

With all due respect Vash you are *wrong*. For what it's worth I received at 34 on the ACT in English, which is almost perfect. 

If you check the link I provided you could buy a black tray WITH mat, cups and pallets for $55. It's right there plain as day, although now discontinued. You are mixing it up for the cheaper black tray which came with none of those for $40 and is still available.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat470006a&prodId=prod1390056a


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Ok , this is a cross continent thing going on, GW not updating stuff on site for different countries in the same way.

When I click your links it just sends me to the UK site.

*So i'll apologize.* Sorry.

TBH I never had much use for GW tools and stuff as they are well overpriced compared to buying similar kit from a non branded company and normally a lower quality.

On a side note I still blame LotR for bumping Epic down from the three mainstream games down to 'Specialist' which we all now know really means unsupported. Locally you can't even play |specialist game in the GW store.

Hmmm that's probably worth a thread of it's own now I come to mention it. Maybe after work lol.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Yeah, the GW site is really weird with cookies. This is what I see:










Anyways, this is a long discussion. Yes I was rude at times, however that is the way I react when so many people say you are wrong for an opinion that differs from their own (and Vaz insulted my vagina LOL!). It's just an opinion. It's not meant to be wrong or right but to express someone's impression of a situation. So I apologize if I offended anyone. 

I'm not happy with GW's handling of business, especially here in the USA. Many of you are happy with it and find it offensive that I'm not :/ I'll just let my part in the discussion end at that.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

No I do not have a LOTR army (going back a few posts) and to be truthful I agree with you that they should be playing catch up with their two main lines instead of playing with Hobbits. I don't think they are losing money, but they are not making as much as they could with making more of their main lines. I play Eldar so I feel the pain of an old book and if I had won the half billion lottery prize one plan I had was buying a controlling interest in GW, no joke. But I didn't so I can not. 

I honestly think they continue to make the minis because they have to under contract. Part of the original license deal. At least White Drawf is not turning into White Hobbit like it did originally back when LotR came out. 

Arcane, why don't you post up a discussion thread in the movies forum about the Hobbit/Trilogy. While I disliked the thread here getting hijacked I would love to see candid opinion for and against the movies.


----------

