| The One Ring http://test.one-ring.co.uk/ |
|
| Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? http://test.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=97&t=31179 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Rangefinder [ Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
My curiosity must be satisfied. I need to know which range of models you prefer. No need to explain. However, you have the liberty to do so. Reserving my vote as to not influence this critical decision. Time to commit!!! |
|
| Author: | wartmanrp [ Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
I find the LOTR range, pre-finecast, to be far superior. The molds and sculpts seem unnatural for most of the hobbit figures. I really like the Perry Bro's stuff as well. Part of this might be that I am really not fond of the concepts and styling that jackson came up with for most of the hobbit stuff. The men of dale look stupid, the orcs and goblins should be the same ones from LOTR, the laketown warriors are lame. Some of the dwarf stuff is cool, but there's too many swords and not enough axes. |
|
| Author: | Wise Old Elf [ Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
I voted LOTR for sheer nostalgia and love. It was the SBG that got me into the hobby, and something I often return to. The Hobbit SBG, in my opinion has more visually stunning miniatures, but their overall quality can never outweigh the LOTR equivalent. |
|
| Author: | Gandlaf the Grey [ Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
If I could I would vote both. Each range has there own positives and negatives so I find it hard to choose a favourite. If I was to reduce to my favourite sculpts I would be close to a 50/50 split. |
|
| Author: | Dorthonion [ Thu Jun 25, 2015 11:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
Some of the Hobbit sculpts are a bit strange, others are fine - they are decent representations of what was seen on screen. My major beef with GW's treatment of The Hobbit is that they seem to have abandoned it halfway through, hence the lack of plastics for a lot of what would be troops choices. |
|
| Author: | Glory4gondor [ Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
Lotr for sure some of the old metal models a fantastic. That's not to say the new ones arn't the new hero are great. I just prefer the old ones |
|
| Author: | JoshT93 [ Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
i think its a hard one to call.. The Hobbit range is tiny compared to the LOTR. However in my opinion the LOTR hero's are better due to their poses and realism (oh and not to mention NO finecast  ). On the other hand i think the grim hammers and mirkwood elves are two of the best plastic kits GW have ever produced for SBG. Its a tricky one... |
|
| Author: | Rangefinder [ Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
I will now wade into the muck... I dislike most, not all of the new range of miniatures from The Hobbit. The classic LOTR poses, to me, reflect the "personality" of the characters. The new range is more interested in capturing motion. The Genie is out of the bottle, and not going back in. I appreciate that The Hobbit has extended? the life of LOTR for now. |
|
| Author: | MRmehman [ Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
A great deal of the Hobbit poses just feel generic; like the sculptor wasn't really invested in the great deeds of the heros, or the vile cunning of the villains. The Hobbit range also lacks that simplicity that some of the models had, the ragged, beaten and broken look of models like the Osgilliath Vets. or the quiet, fallen angle feel of the Arnor army. The point I want to hammer home is that with almost all the LOTR models, I got an emotion, of hope, of fear, pride or determination. The Hobbit range just doesn't do it for me in that scene. |
|
| Author: | Jamros [ Thu Jul 02, 2015 10:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
I agree with RangeFinder. The earliest LotR models were of some of the highest caliber miniatures available at 28mm. They had exceptional detail, good proportions, great poses, and most bore a fantastic resemblance to their film counterparts (with some very notable misses). They were also displayed with amazing paint jobs. The LotR range started noticeably going downhill a bit after RotK. The further from the films, the worse the models began to look. The sculpting got lazy and blocky, character models looked nothing like the actors, the poses got worse, the paint jobs were sloppy. Things did not get better for The Hobbit. GW's original Bilbo is so full of character, and looks just like Ian Holm. Not a single Hobbit Bilbo looks like Martin Freeman, and each one looks like nothing more than a cheap game piece. Compare especially GW's Hobbit Bilbos to Knight Models' Bilbo. |
|
| Author: | Lord_of_the_nine [ Sat Jul 18, 2015 1:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
Lotr for sure and it's not only about the miniatures back then the poses where not so dramatic which was perfect for building armies that actually looked like armies Hobbit miniatures Have more dramatic and indinidual poses which make them good for a showcase but in the battlefield they look as if it's every man for himself and not an army. Besides that back in the day I felt LOTR more of a miniature hobby with scratch builds and all these great things and Hobbit nowadays fells more like something you spend money on and nothing more. |
|
| Author: | LordoftheBrownRing [ Mon Aug 03, 2015 12:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
At first I thought there was an amazing amount of bias....but then I saw there's no real idea to in which way you like them better... The hobbit models are undoubtedly better in terms of poses and sculpts for foot soldiers. The detail is amazing. But of course I think most gamers would prefer metal to finecast. I still vote in terms of foot soldiers the hobbit. Heroes the Lotr. |
|
| Author: | Rangefinder [ Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
I have thought about my poll recently about the Hobbit range. It's the Hyper-Realism that is in all the movies. Whether it's the CGI or actual filming. There's a Hyper-Realism Hangover that does not make the leap to the table. I saw all three in 3-D IMAX with the increased frame rate. The movies were a great spectacle, and I enjoyed it. At home, using just our DVD player, I liked it equally as much. But bringing the Hyper-Realism from the movie to the tabletop... this is where the break is for me. I prefer a more "Interpretative" miniature for gaming. |
|
| Author: | PeterOfDale [ Wed Nov 25, 2015 10:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
The technology used for hobbit models is probably better, so they have all those swirling cloaks and dynamic poses etc. But the original LOTr models have much more presence character and nobility. That is why I vote Lotr. |
|
| Author: | mdauben [ Tue Dec 01, 2015 6:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
There are certainly things I like (and things I don't) in both ranges. SOme of that comes down to sculpts. Some of it comes down to the source material. For example, overall I like the LOTR Warg Rider sculpts better, but I do like the design of the Hobbit wargs better (more wolflike). |
|
| Author: | Andúril [ Sun Apr 10, 2016 6:27 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
The Detail on the Hobbit Range seems to be slightly better but for nostalgia and childhood memories to me the LOTR is far more appealing especially the OOP story box sets like 'Ambush on Amon Hen' etc. |
|
| Author: | Commissariat [ Sun Jul 03, 2016 2:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
For me, I am looking at the question as it is asked, "Which Range is more visually appealing?". I am also looking at this question as if it were asked of me specifically, not a matter of high-quality techno-gizwatt and skill-peak levels in either range for the best models ever but of taste. I find the LOTR range to be more visually appealing because I find them easier to look at and comprehend, so to speak. When I look at Mirkwood rangers, I see twists and arcs and carving figures that send a lot of random information into my optical receptors. When I look at the Warriors of Rohan I get instant understanding of what they are and what they are doing.... I say in the most vague way possible... Ranger v Ranger I look at the Rangers of Gondor, as my example, and instantly recognize soldiers in a war setting doing sneaky-peaky ranger sort of things. I look at the Mirkwood Rangers and I see almost a sort of Anime-Hero essence to them. This Anime-Hero essence is distracting to me somehow and sort of takes away from what I am supposed to know they are, rangers. There are two exceptions in the Mirkwood Ranger sculpts and that is the crouched one and kind of the masked one. The masked one seems awkwardly posed alongside her intended action, but the mask is too cool and fitting in my mental picture of a "Ranger". TL;DR I find the Hobbit Range to be too distracting and complicated for my poor brain, the LOTR Range gives a simple feeling of what each model is in a simple game. |
|
| Author: | Dikey [ Sun Aug 14, 2016 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
Commissariat wrote: Ranger v Ranger I look at the Rangers of Gondor, as my example, and instantly recognize soldiers in a war setting doing sneaky-peaky ranger sort of things. I look at the Mirkwood Rangers and I see almost a sort of Anime-Hero essence to them. This Anime-Hero essence is distracting to me somehow and sort of takes away from what I am supposed to know they are, rangers. There are two exceptions in the Mirkwood Ranger sculpts and that is the crouched one and kind of the masked one. The masked one seems awkwardly posed alongside her intended action, but the mask is too cool and fitting in my mental picture of a "Ranger". TL;DR I find the Hobbit Range to be too distracting and complicated for my poor brain, the LOTR Range gives a simple feeling of what each model is in a simple game. I agree, but I guess the movie are at fault too since those elves fight like anime heroes. They are elves, noble and superior beings. I guess they are not bound by the rules of physics. My two cents on the matter. I think that, when it comes to heroes, the LOTR range had more "personality" in its figures. A feeling I got from looking at most of the models from the hobbit range is that they are doing a "generic hero pose", while LOTR ones had more uniqueness in them. |
|
| Author: | Tar-Minastir [ Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
Commissariat wrote: ….I find the LOTR range to be more visually appealing because I find them easier to look at and comprehend, so to speak. When I look at Mirkwood rangers, I see twists and arcs and carving figures that send a lot of random information into my optical receptors. When I look at the Warriors of Rohan I get instant understanding of what they are and what they are doing.... I say in the most vague way possible... Ranger v Ranger I look at the Rangers of Gondor, as my example, and instantly recognize soldiers in a war setting doing sneaky-peaky ranger sort of things. I look at the Mirkwood Rangers and I see almost a sort of Anime-Hero essence to them. This Anime-Hero essence is distracting to me somehow and sort of takes away from what I am supposed to know they are, rangers…. TL;DR I find the Hobbit Range to be too distracting and complicated for my poor brain, the LOTR Range gives a simple feeling of what each model is in a simple game. I agree with this. In most cases I think the model ranges are equally great. I love the wargs, and Gundabad orcs. But in the case of mirkwood rangers and hunter orcs, the poses are unnatural, awckward, and silly. They look like they belong in the 40k Dark Eldar range rather than Hobbit. So that probably is enough to tip me in the direction of LOTR over the Hobbit - but it's a close call. |
|
| Author: | polywags [ Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hobbit vs. LOTR: Which range is more visually appealing? |
There are some really cool hobbit models for sure. I think the new dwarves, Dain, some of the Mirkwood stuff, Thranduil with the crown, the Mirkwood rangers, SMAUG! Beorn, are some really great models! And I think some of those are up there with my favorites models but there are also models in the Hobbit range that I wouldn't consider picking up where as there is almost no LOTR model that at some point I haven't been interested in, eventually picking up. I think that, for me at least, is because I really didn't like a lot of the designs and changes in the hobbit movies. Characters like Azog and Bolg, many of Thorin's company dwarves I can't stand the look of. The hunter orc models, also seem particularly tossed together, laketown milita with their straw shields and defense 5 are just things that don't appeal to me. With all that said, I don't know if there are any models that are more awesome then some of the LOTR range. Charging helms deep Aragorn, captain of the white tower Boromir, almost all of the gandalfs, mounted, on cart, fellowship, Three Hunters Aragorn, Armored Haldir, Theoden, a lot of the Uruks are awesome. It may just be because of how much better the LOTR movies are that even a more crude representation of a specific scene or shot from the movie is so much cooler. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|