Please do not read this! (Battles of The Lord of the Rings magazine ad) [Archive]

Rumil

02-05-2003, 05:56 PM

I'm interested in why you dislike this Elanor.

For those not in the know, I expect a brief (OK not so brief)explanation is needed....

Various companies have obtained licenses through the years to make Middle Earth related merchandise, roleplaying games, boardgames, computer games etc. (there's even a film or two out apparently smilies/wink.gif ). One of the major interests inspired by Tolkien is in roleplaying games (check out the v. thinly veiled allusions in Dungeons and Dragons for example). Many roleplayers like to use figurines (toy soldiers really) to represent the characters so an industry has grown up making elf, orc, hobbit figures etc. Parallel to this has been the development of historical wargaming, using hundreds of figures to replay battles such as Waterloo, Gettysburg etc.

Naturally the two hobbies collided with one another to create fantasy wargaming. Licensing difficulties meant that companies had to make generic rulesets which didn't obviously quote from Tolkien (eg. Warhammer).
Now that the films have seen interest in ME explode, Games Workshop have obtained the rights to make a range of figures, rules and supplementary info for skirmish wargames, based on the films.

To comment on these, the rules are well produced but rather simple (perfect for the market they hope to capture) and are very expensive. The figures are similarly expensive but are really nicely done (although Mithril Miniatures, the previous licenceholders didn't do a bad job either.) I've played one game with them, which was very entertaining (escaped from Moria but lost Merry - oh well).

A major criticism is that they are, of course, based on the film, not the book. Therefore PJ's dubious decisions are perpetuated (elves with katanas, Haldir at Helm's Deep etc.)

The magazine supports all this and will no doubt aim to part obsessed gamers from more of their cash. (I must admit to wondering if 12 goblins for £2 was a good deal though). In the fine tradition of RPGs, expect many extra supplements (see D+D, Warhammer etc.).

On the subject of cashing in on Tolkien, well, the films are obviously the biggest culprits. Don't forget though that JRRT certainly made a few quid from the books, (though I'm sure it wasn't his motivation) and the Tolkien estate does not seem averse to making a few dollars more.

On the subject of representing violence, I think the films and the computer games do a far 'better' job.

In conclusion, I've got my reservations about Games Workshop (I remember being outraged when they hiked the price of figues from 30p to 50p, which was a very long time ago), but I see no reason for singling out this enterprise for condemnation. (Even the esteemed Barrow Downs provide links to buy trinkets and to a wargames site).

Please respond, one and all!

Durelin

02-05-2003, 06:23 PM

I'd just like to say, SO WHAT! People have to make a living, that's how business works, you have to merchandise a movie and when the movies big, everyone will want the rights to it so they can feed off of the big thing so that the people behind the movie get money as well as those manufacturing the merchandise. Wargamings pretty big, and I am one who thinks it's pretty cool. I don't do it myself but I know enough about it from my dad and brother, it is an excellent creation and it only gets better as it progresses with time and technology. I say, enjoy merchandise while you have the money for it! smilies/biggrin.gif The rules of most "table top battles" are simple enough to be comprehended and complicated enough to be fun and not boring. It teaches and sharpens all the basic skills needed to become an evil dictator! smilies/biggrin.gif (to all those who needed to know: I was only kidding with that last statement. To those who didn't need to know, sorry, but unfortunately, there are those who do.)

doug*platypus

02-05-2003, 08:44 PM

$$$

Yeah, it does all come from a desire for money, money, money, but you have to realise that if people didn't actually want this, there would be no money to be made from it. There are a lot of people out there who would get heaps of enjoyment from Battles of Middle-Earth. Good for them! Finally because of the movies, someone is willing to make products that they will enjoy.

The good thing is that there is not such an easy translation between Middle-Earth battles and modern warfare. If we kept glorifying war with guns, it might become more acceptable at large (not that I'm strictly a pacifist). Battles of Middle-Earth are less harmless than Rambo 2.

Inderjit Sanghera

02-06-2003, 09:56 AM

Yeah, just saw it this morning. Looks ****.

eleanor_niphredil

02-06-2003, 11:35 AM

I'm interested in why you dislike this Elanor.

I have never liked those magazines. You know the type. First issue is something like 99p, and as soon as you get hooked, they put it up to something rediculas, like £5.00 an issue. There are loads of them out there, and I hate them all. The foreign money collecting, the perfume collection, The Horrible Histories, the Art course one, the little crystal modles, the teddy bears, the china dolls, the miniture classics, build-a-dino, Sabrinas secrets, S-club style etc.

The point is, they are all made purley to squeee money out of parents through the pitiful little faces of their children, are something like that. If it was purly a mag about roleplaying, then I would be fine with it, but it gives you a small amount of the game with each issue, therefore, if you want to do anything with the little bits and pieces that you have, you have to spend hundreds of pounds on issue after issue.

So now you know!

The Saucepan Man

02-06-2003, 12:34 PM

Saw the advert last night.

I've nothing against the idea of ME-based wargames. In fact, it was just sort of the thing I was into when I was at school. I still have a veritable treasure trove of (mostly unpainted) lead figures stashed away in a cupboard somewhere.

But, I agree with you, eleanor, that these kinds of magazine, which come in all shapes and sizes, are pretty insidious. I should imagine that anyone who's interested is better off going to somewhere like Games Workshop and getting a boxed set or something.

However, bound to happen with all the hype about the film. And there will always be people happy to sell these things while there are people willing to buy them ...

eleanor_niphredil

02-06-2003, 12:41 PM

I have nothing against the role-playing games.

Naldoriathil

02-06-2003, 12:48 PM

The Saucepan Man

02-06-2003, 01:23 PM

It is aimed at little kids who don't really give a crap about the meaning of the books

Bit harsh! I remember caring greatly about the meaning of the books while having fun reenacting the Battle of Five Armies. smilies/smile.gif

DaughterofVana

02-06-2003, 01:41 PM

I'm getting a bit inrigued to know what you people are talking about. Must be a Brit thing... don't remember seeing anything over here in the States, though since I've stopped working at the bookstore and gone on to be a (hard working) university student, my scope of entertainment happenings is small. smilies/smile.gif TT opening night was the last time I've been to a movie, and I can't remember the last time I watched TV without the show being something my roomate picked out. What's the name of the magazine in question? Post a link and I'll check it out if it's got an online version (or at least a place with a summary). Call it morbid curiousity. smilies/smile.gif

I'm completely with you on the commercial aspect. Though currently residing in the country that gave capitalism it's capital "C", it still makes me ill when I saw ads (thankfully past-tense, mostly it was FoTR-related) for mugs being sold at Burger King with the likenesses of Undomiel and the Hobbit trio. Probably soon there will be similar things with Treebeard and Eowyn.

-'Vana

[ February 06, 2003: Message edited by: DaughterofVana ]

Elanor

02-06-2003, 02:50 PM

Urgh, I just saw it in a newsagent this afternoon, and the "goblin soldiers" look so tacky. smilies/mad.gif

Rumil

02-06-2003, 02:57 PM

Ah, fair point Eleanor,

I suppose the trick is to buy them until the price goes up!

bizarrely there's one serial magazine type thing on TV at the moment where you collect one bit of a ship model each week over 60 weeks, probably costing twice as much as buying the thing outright. (and I bet they stop stocking it at issue 55).

Daughter of Vana, type Games Workshop into your search engine and you'll find far more than you wanted to know! (sorry, not teched up enough to put a link in!)

btw. Burger King hobbit mugs - Yeeuch!

(perhaps we can find the most tasteless LotR merchandising object, but the mugs must come close!)

Aredhelaran

02-06-2003, 03:37 PM

I don't have a problem with Video+Computer games (I have them) but once it is extremely comercialized - yech.

hobbitlass

02-06-2003, 11:50 PM

Dare I say this...sometimes we are just too uppity for our own good.
We all have our own stories of how we came across Tolkien's works. Most are noble ones of reading (and understanding) this great and complex work at an early age. I'm glad and impressed, but what about the person that discovers it through the commercialism.
They see the movies, get action figures, even LOOOVE Legolas but then they delve deeper and find that it is actually a book and there are more books. And they read them and understand them and find others who share a common interest, let's say, on the internet. Then that person delves even deeper to where they can be a part of an enlightened and deep discussion.
Why would that be a madenning thing if a person comes in through the back door by means of a tacky war-game. (Disclaimer- I have never seen one).
Again, if one doesn't like the 'stuff' that comes with making a movie, don't buy it.
And as for the Burger King goblets, there was Gandalf, Arwen, Aragorn and Frodo (at least in the states) of which I have except Frodo, it broke.
So keep your high morals but don't shun those of us that like the 'fun' stuff, too.

arelendil

02-07-2003, 10:19 AM

its a warhammer game. warhammer had high elves and orcs way before the movie came out. they've just been remodeled to match the films. they've been around for at least ten years as far as i know! its great fun!

VanimaEdhel

02-07-2003, 03:22 PM

The magazine I do not mind as much as the program I saw this morning on the television. I was surfing the channels, as nothing was on my standard stations when I came across channel NYE. They had a show on called "Munchables". This show, on this episode, was like a "Cliff's Notes: Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: Monsters". They discussed the Nazgul, the Orcs, and the Balrog.

Normally I would think that it was cute that they were trying to teach little children (as this was obviously the crowd they were aiming for, saying words such as "bad guys" and "mean people") the joys of "The Lord of the Rings", but my problem was that they gave false information. For example, they started talking about Uruk-Hai, but they didn't use the term "Uruk-Hai", they used the term "Superorcs". They also said that Sauron (they said Sauron, mind you) created these half-breeds. I know that they are aiming this at small children, but they should just not discuss the subjects rather than lie about it.

They did a good job with the Balrog, however, in my opinion. Even though they showed what every other creature looked like, they never show the Balrog. They explain that Tolkien never really described the Balrog, and they even bring up that there's a debate about whether he had wings or not (I fell off my couch laughing...literally)!

But, if they do a good job representing a part of a story accurately, then I have no problem with them trying to sell Lord of the Rings merchandise, such as the magazine.

EDIT: warhammer had high elves and orcs way before the movie came out. they've just been remodeled to match the films.

Well, the books were out before the movie, remember, hun! And what gets me is that they use some of the music from "The Bridge of Khadad-Dum" in the commercial...I always think it's a Lord of the Rings commercial until I see it...

[ February 07, 2003: Message edited by: VanimaEdhel ]

Bill Ferny

02-07-2003, 03:38 PM

Rumil wrote an excellent post in regards to this magazine and the new line of products related to the release of a war game by Games Workshop (http://www.games-workshop.com/) based on the Lord of the Rings movies. For those of you not familiar with this magazine or game, it would be a good idea to read his post.

This game and magazine are geared to a particular audience of war game enthusiasts. It is not for everyone. I personally do not play these kinds of games, but I know many people who do. Most of these people are not under the age of 18, but the ones I know are college age or older. Warhammer for example was very popular among many soldiers living in the barracks back when I was in the Army. Thus, characterizing them as “kids” depends on how one defines the term.

From what I know of Games Workshop they are nothing like your characterization, eleanor. Games Workshop, while definitely out to make a profit, are from all I can discern a respectable gaming company with a huge fan base. The fan base on which Games Workshop focuses would not accept anything like The Horrible Histories (though I admit I have no idea what the heck that is), little crystal models, teddy bears, or china dolls. For the most part, these are older and intelligent people who play these games, and Games Workshop knows this.

The game from what I've seen is based on the battle scenes portrayed in the movies. The movies in turn were based (at least loosely) on battles in the books. If adapting these battles into a war game is glorifying war, then PJ adapting the written material into a movie must also be glorifying war. Of course, the greatest sinner to glorify war would have to be the professor, himself, who first penned these battles.

While you and I may deem such a magazine as a waste of money, there are many people out there who don’t, and who are you to judge? Who am I to judge? I own a very expensive collection of swords, maille, a shield, and a great helm, not to mention a collection of historical cloths and patterns. My wife spends a lot of money on PS2 games, a modem, and soon a hard drive. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there who would say we are wasting our money, and glorifying violence and war… but our response, as I’m sure Games Workshop’s and their fans’ response to your objections, would be: “p*ssoff.”

Bill Ferny

02-07-2003, 04:00 PM

…my problem was that they gave false information. For example, they started talking about Uruk-Hai, but they didn't use the term "Uruk-Hai", they used the term "Superorcs". They also said that Sauron (they said Sauron, mind you) created these half-breeds. I know that they are aiming this at small children, but they should just not discuss the subjects rather than lie about it.

I should let this one go… but, darn it!, I can’t. Umm…. Sauron did create the uruk-hai, and the uruk-hai were not half-breeds, but were a kind of super breed of orc.

Don't sweat it, though, its a common mistake ever since the movies came out.

the witch king

02-07-2003, 04:15 PM

Thanx bill, i can never let that one go eather, i dont see the problem with it i mean its not my cup of tea but each to there own u no live nd let live and all that kind of thing.

eleanor_niphredil

02-08-2003, 06:23 AM

For the last time...

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE GAMES!

Its the idea of the magaine that annoys me. Have you actualy seen the advert? I have bought these mags as a kid, but I have learnt now that they are a waste of time. This is totaly based on the movie, the characters are all based on the actors, it is NOT aimed at an older audience, and there is no excuse for making an elf look ugly.

With the first issue, you get four paints, a brush and twelve "goblin warriors". For five quid. You people who play these games, tell us how much that would cost in a gaming shop. Bet its alot less. All it is is taking advantage of the hype at the moment.

i predict that this will be on the market just until the hype dies down. Then, they will no longer be interested.

Bill Ferny

02-08-2003, 11:20 AM

I have bought these mags as a kid, but I have learnt now that they are a waste of time.

As I said, that is a matter of personal opinion.

This is totaly based on the movie, the characters are all based on the actors, it is NOT aimed at an older audience…

There’s nothing wrong with a company basing a product line on a movie, even when that movie is itself based on a book. Its been done ever since Eorl Flynn hopped around like an idiot as Robin Hood. Why is it wrong that these companies base their products on the movie and not the books? Like I said, regardless of your take on the advertisement, most people I know who play this particular war game are not high school age or younger.

…there is no excuse for making an elf look ugly.

Maybe… maybe not. Have you ever seen the old animated version of the Hobbit. Those were some pretty ugly wood elves. I don’t think it very fair to limit another’s creative vision, even if it is rather silly or inaccurate. Its enough to simply point out that its inaccurate, and move on.

With the first issue, you get four paints, a brush and twelve "goblin warriors". For five quid. You people who play these games, tell us how much that would cost in a gaming shop. Bet its alot less.

I have no idea, but I’m curious. I do know that in the US the starter box set costs something like $40. In my opinion that’s a bit expensive for plastic toy soldiers, and I believe paints and brushes aren’t included.

All it is is taking advantage of the hype at the moment.

That’s called good business. They are trying to make money, you know. The works of JRR Tolkien are not sacred writ, nor are the movies some sort of cinematic religious shrine. From the very first person to read the Hobbit, the professor has been interpreted and envisioned in very different ways. The fact that his work was published and has been made into various movies proves that from the beginning there were many not opposed to cashing in on their particular take on his work.

I agree with you, though, about the last point. People very well could loose interest after the hype dies down. From what I’ve heard the rules are significantly different from Warhammer rules, and most who purchase these soldiers actually play according to Warhammer rules and use their own senarios.

the guy who be short

02-08-2003, 11:41 AM

i thoguht saruman created the uruk-hai by breeding orcs and men? and that was why they couild endure sunlight. and i remember them saying sumthing about a man who looked like an orc in bree, and several in the shire, being sarumans spies? plz check this for me, as i dont have a copy of the two towers (shock! horror!)

Narmo

02-08-2003, 11:59 AM

yep, it was Saruman who made the Uruk-hai. Sauron did not 'create' the Orcs they were elves who had been twisted by Morgoth in his dungeons. And, I'm not sure of this, but i think the spies in Bree, when it is said they look like half-goblin's I think that is because of their twisted personalities making them look like that not that they were REALLY half-goblin, however I'm not to sure on that point.

Tar-Palantir

02-08-2003, 12:24 PM

yep, it was Saruman who made the Uruk-hai.

No. Like Bill Ferny said, Sauron bred the first Uruk-hai. In approx. 2475 (I could be 2-3 years off here) of the Third Age, hundreds of years before Saruman joined in the fun.

Bill Ferny

02-08-2003, 12:30 PM

I’m not going to comment in depth on the origin of uruk-hai, orcs, and orc-men. As the following links will show, uruk-hai were created by Sauron, uruk-hai are not the same thing as orc-men, and the fact that orcs were corrupted elves was disputed by JRR Tolkien, himself. This subject has already been done to death in the books section. Here are the pertinent links for your study.

The most informative is the following: orcish fear (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000025)

null (http://null)and here, (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=002498)and here, (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000879)and here, (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001087)and here (http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001087).

Also a careful reading of the original text will answer your questions, especially the appendix to the RotK.

[ February 08, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

InklingElf

02-08-2003, 12:40 PM

It is just harmless fun. It is aimed at little kids who don't really give a crap about the meaning of the books. If it selld then good for them, but i don't really see it as a major issue.....

I agree that it is just harmless fun, but I disagree that it is aimed at kids who don't give a crap about books. Believe me, there are many kids out there who love books, and also don't mind playing video games (like me). I've played the LOTR game and I've also read the books. I do give a crap about literature.

Narmo

02-08-2003, 12:54 PM

Ok, I've never read the lost tales and the rest of that series up to whatever number cos they arent all sold here in KZN so I probably am wrong about the Uruk-hai thing BUT -and this is the big BUT- I do still disaggree with Bill Ferny about one thing.How could the fact that orcs were twisted elves have been "disputed" by Tolkien. I mean he wrote the books! He should know and be definite. And if he "disputed" the origins of orcs then why did he write that they were once elves? That would be illogical.

eleanor_niphredil

02-08-2003, 05:21 PM

The magazine is clearly aimed at beginners, not at people that play the games. Are you thinking of the same magazine?

I suppose I havent been very clear about the source of my anger. I do not like this kind of thing because it makes the books look cheap, stupid and well, geeky. Not the gameing. The advert. I hate it how people make LOTR sound like that. It deprives so many people of reading it, getting into the real depth of the book.

InklingElf

02-08-2003, 10:43 PM

eleanor_niphredil: Argh! I'm afraid I have made a terrible mistake! My apologies smilies/frown.gif
This is not the first time I have made a fool of myself, but still I agree with what I said. ::shrugs::

And I do agree on your views eleanor

Helkahothion

02-09-2003, 06:33 AM

I don't have the magazine here,

It's a shame tough. I like th battles and a magazine about it would give some nice articles for my collection. What is so bad about it. I love the books and the movies. I would buy the magazine I think.

Greetings,

Anuion
________
ANEMIA FORUMS (http://www.health-forums.org/anemia/)

Bill Ferny

02-09-2003, 01:51 PM

Are you thinking of the same magazine?

Yep… this product (http://www.games-workshop.com/thelordoftherings/uk/bgme/default.htm).

I saw the commercial for this product. Actually it looks more like a collection of blister packs, rather than a magazine. True, it is clearly aimed at beginners, but that doesn’t necessarily imply children. I got the impression that the commercial targeted younger people as well, but that isn’t an issue so long as it doesn’t target any one below the age of 12 (the recommended age limit on the product is 12+).

I do not like this kind of thing because it makes the books look cheap, stupid and well, geeky. Not the gameing. The advert. I hate it how people make LOTR sound like that. It deprives so many people of reading it, getting into the real depth of the book.

Assuming that the advertisement made the books look cheap, stupid and geeky, The Two Towers stayed at the top of the box office sales for something like four or five weeks (not sure, for all I know it could still be there). I seriously doubt that this product or its advertisements are going to take anything away from the Tolkien mania already out there. If anything an increase in advertising, even bad advertising, will only help to get the Tolkien name disseminated even more.

I, however, don’t think it made the books look stupid or cheap. The commercial, like the game, is based on the movies, not the books. One can argue that the movies make the books look stupid or cheap. It’s a matter of aesthetic taste. As far as it being “geeky,” I guess the commercial fits my preconceived notion of geeky. However, being a geek, myself, I will be the first stand up for the rights of geeks everywhere to envision and interpret the LotR with as much freedom and relevancy as any star quarterback or lead cheerleader. smilies/wink.gif

If this commercial stops someone from reading the books, it indicates that they are to some degree incapable of critical thinking; they are unable to separate commercial from reality. If good advertising indicates consumer spending in tota, then no one would ever buy a used car! If they don’t read the books… well, their lose. Seeing as how LotR was the book of the century, I’m not going to sweat it.

As concerns the “real depth” of the books, once again you broach the aesthetic. A quick look at the books section is enough to demonstrate that there are as many interpretations of the “real depth” of these books as there are people who read them. The only thing that disturbs me is someone who comes along claiming to be able to determine what that “real depth” is. I don’t even think the professor, himself, would be able to answer that question. There are those who find in the books the philosophical center of our modern existence, and then there are others who find only a quaint tale to read before going to bed at night. I’m sure for a few, the books (or the movies), are nothing more than great scenery for a battle game. This does nothing to take away from the books, but only illustrates the enduring fecundity of the professor’s work.

Narmo, Tolkien also called elves, gnomes in the early stages. He never stopped revising his mythology, and the material in the published Silm belongs to a given stage of revision that is not necessarily Tolkien’s final word. See the Rivised Silm section on this forum. As you will see it gets rather complicated. smilies/wink.gif

eleanor_niphredil

02-09-2003, 02:10 PM

Have a look at it in the shops. look at the quality of the modles, and then make your decision. The site that you posted does not reflect anything bad, and why would it? Its advertising the product!

I know i said books, but what i really mean is the reputation of Tokien in todays world. things like this do it no good.

[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: eleanor_niphredil ]

Bill Ferny

02-09-2003, 05:19 PM

I have seen the quality of the models, unpainted and painted by a friend of mine. In my opinion, they are sub-par. Not because of detail. The sculpting is excellent, and its obvious that the artists put a lot of work into these miniatures. They are sub-par because they are made out of plastic. I suppose the reason for this is so they could bring down the minimum age to 12. Lead isn’t really a good miniature media for twelve year olds. This was a business decision, from my understanding of what has been explained to me, intended to widen Games Workshop’s customer base, and is not limited to only this particular product line. Another reason was safety, though I’m sure this was a secondary consideration (yeah, that was a bit of cynicism).

Tolkien put his reputation on the line when he published The Hobbit. I can argue, likewise, with some merit that the movies have done harm to Tolkien’s reputation, as has Alan Lee’s, John Howe’s, Ted Nasmith’s, and plethora of good and bad fan fiction and art. I can argue that 99% of the posts on this forum has harmed Tolkien’s reputation. My opinion of what Tolkien’s reputation is or is becoming in no way gives me the right to dictate how other people envision, interpret, apply or commercialize (as long as it is legal) LotR.

I wonder what you are worried about as regards his reputation. Do you think that the commercialism and hype surrounding the movies and movie spin-off merchandise somehow harms Tolkien’s reputation as a great literary figure? Hardly! Tolkien and his fiction have never been taken seriously in scholarly circles. When was the last time The Hobbit showed up more often than Tennyson, Dickinson, or Joseph Conrad in a college British Literature syllabi? All three of those authors show up in Webster’s Dictionary, Tolkien does not.

It can be argued, though, that Tolkien is just as good from a literary stand point, even though his poetry really can’t compare to his forebears. The reason he isn’t taken seriously is his association with a genre that is full of trite crap, shallow skill, and mindless hacks. The moniker “Father of Modern Fantasy” has done more to harm Tolkien’s reputation than any movie or movie spin-off merchandise could have hoped to achieve if they were trying.

[ February 09, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

Lush

02-09-2003, 05:57 PM

*applause for Bill Ferny*

Coral

02-09-2003, 06:23 PM

Am I harming Tolkien's reputation by posting this?

Kalimac

02-10-2003, 12:52 AM

Hooray for Bill Ferny! [clap clap]

Personally, I don't really mind the models, etc, no matter how silly/inaccurate/badly done they may be. They are but a few and passing evil - in a few years they'll be yesterday's junk, stored in the attic or contributing to a landfill somewhere, but Tolkien himself will be in good shape. It's true that some people will get warped or completely false ideas of his universe from such toys, but if they do not have the persistence or the curiosity to correct these impressions by reading the original works, Tolkien probably hasn't lost any potential fans - these people probably just weren't natural Tolkienphiles in the first place. It's true that his scholarly reputation in literature is not what (I think) it should be, but as Bill pointed out, that's a problem that cuts much deeper than a few action figures. Regardless, he has a solid and enduring fan base.

In a way, this reminds me a bit of the reaction among the Janeites (yes, I hang out with them as well) when the greatly-distorted movie of "Mansfield Park" came out a few years ago. It was a pretty dreadful film both by itself and as an adaptation, but some of the reactions to it were borderline hysterical, thinking that Jane Austen's reputation or fanbase had been damaged irreparably by the lousy quality of the spinoffs of her work. A few years later, the movie is on the back shelf at the video store, and sales of Austen's books have not dipped noticeably.

Time will take care of it, as it takes care of everything.

[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Kalimac ]

eleanor_niphredil

02-10-2003, 10:59 AM

no no no, you dont understand. smilies/mad.gif

When I say tolkien, i do not mean him as a person. I mean Tolkien as a collective term for his works, and you cannot say that commersialism like this does the reputation of his books, his life work, any good. Think of the term "Trekkies". Is this what you want to happen to Tolkien, or, as I have to spell everything out here, Tolkiens Books? Should I say it slower?

Anyway. I would like to know why you so passionatly defend this magazine. Why are you so eager to defend something that so clearly is lowering LOTR to the level of Harry potter? no offence to any HP fans out there, but it does lack the depth of LOTR.

I saw some more of these type of magazines yesterday. The Angelina ballerina is one and Winnie the Pooh one can now be added to the collection.

By the way.
Am I harming Tolkien's reputation by posting this?

i did not bring this up, but yes you are so ha. smilies/biggrin.gif

contributing to a landfill somewhere

Do NOT get me started on the enviromental issues that this presents. The results are not pretty.

[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: eleanor_niphredil ]

Bill Ferny

02-10-2003, 12:18 PM

The harshness of the following post is in response to the condescending tone of your last post. I know it is the Christian thing to turn the other cheek, but then again, chivalry does not turn its face from insult. I suggest if you want people to understand what you are saying, it would be a good idea to convey your thoughts clearly from the beginning. Of course, it would also be helpful if you stopped changing your mind so often.

Hmm, lets see shall we:

I have just seen an advert on the TV for A Battles of The Lord of the Rings magazine. I have never seen something so rediculas! It totaly destroys the meaning in the books, the characters look compleatly stupid…

Apparently you are talking about the game. Or at least you aren’t at all clear about what you are at odds with.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE GAMES!

Thank you for the much needed clarification. But do you mean war gaming? or Middle-Earth war gaming?

I have never liked those magazines.

You are definitely talking about the magazine here.

Not the gameing. The advert. I hate it how people make LOTR sound like that.

So, it’s the advertisement that you have problems with? I thought it was the magazine itself or maybe Middle-Earth war gaming?

I do not like this kind of thing because it makes the books look cheap, stupid and well, geeky.

Definitely said books. Now I at this point understood “books” as meaning the whole corpus of Tolkien’s work.

I know i said books, but what i really mean is the reputation of Tokien in todays world.

Thanks for that useless clarification. A clarification usually goes from the more general to the more specific. Here you went the other direction. His reputation as what? a writer? a linguist? a father? a husband? a neighbor? an Englishman? I took it from context that you meant his reputation as a literary figure. I won’t make the mistake of employing common sense when reading your posts in the future.

I mean Tolkien as a collective term for his works

Funny. That’s exactly what my understanding of “books” was before you brought up reputation.

I would like to know why you so passionatly defend this magazine. Why are you so eager to defend something that so clearly is lowering LOTR to the level of Harry potter?

Are you implying that there is some hidden agenda? That, maybe, I’m really a war gamer claiming not to be, or worse yet, the CEO of Games Workshop? Sorry, but no. That will come as a great pain for you, I'm sure… I know how much you would love to fit me and everyone else who disagrees with you into nice neat categories, like “geek” or “corporate cheeseba”.

In answer to your question, simply because I have all my life seen people ostracized by incredibly judgmental people just because of the things they like or the hobbies they enjoy. Yeah, I’m talking about “Trekkies”, HP fans, D&D gamers, historical re-enactors, war gamers, and video gamers, but let me tell you something, back in my day, the people in school who were ostracized for something they enjoyed, the kids who were called geeks, were the kids who read JRR Tolkien!

[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

Helkahothion

02-10-2003, 01:06 PM

Ahw brother,

I saw what it was, I am so sad we don't have it here. Damn Holland.

Greetigns,

Anuion
________
Herbal Vaporizers (http://vaporizers.net/)

eleanor_niphredil

02-10-2003, 03:03 PM

The harshness of the following post is in response to the condescending tone of your last post. I know it is the Christian thing to turn the other cheek, but then again, chivalry does not turn its face from insult.

Look, I am sorry if I have insulted you, or anyone else for that matter.This post was never meant as an insult to anyone, apart from the makers of the magazine. If it was meant to be so serious, it would not be on this board. However, I would not know about what is Christian, as I am not a Christian.

Apparently you are talking about the game. Or at least you aren’t at all clear about what you are at odds with.

I suppose this just depends on the way your mind works. I read it as the magazine, but if you read it differently, who am I to judge.

Are you implying that there is some hidden agenda? That, maybe, I’m really a war gamer claiming not to be, or worse yet, the CEO of Games Workshop? Sorry, but no. That will come as a great pain for you, I'm sure… I know how much you would love to fit me and everyone else who disagrees with you into nice neat categories, like “geek” or “corporate cheeseba”.

This, however, cannot be ignored. For one thing, you never answered my question. Next, I REALLY hate people like the person that you think I am. If you could even begin to imagine how angry this makes me. If I wanted everyone to be in a specific category, if I considered people with hobbies like this as geeks, then why would I have them? I used the word "geeky" purley because tyhere is no other word for it. Are you going to say that, in your perfect world, there would still be people who
thought of LOTR as geeky? Dont you want LOTR to be accepted by society?

It seems that you have gotten a little...confused. So, I will clarify.

I am against the magazine, and the way that it is advertised. I hate the way that it cheapens LOTR, commercialises it. I think that it further ruins the publics view of the books.

Happy? (though I think I know the answer...)

Rumil

02-10-2003, 03:03 PM

Haha,

controversy successfully stirred!

Bill Ferny, I agree with you about not stigmatising 'interest groups' ie. trekkies. (Though i might make an exception for competition wargamers - not one are you? smilies/wink.gif )
I think Eleanor Niphredil has a fair point about the way these things are marketed, specifically the bit-part magazine series, which I've been 'burned' by in the past. ('Oh we haven't stocked them since March' etc).

Bill, one of your previous posts on this thread claimed that Eorl's surname was Flynn. Does this explain the effectiveness of the Eothoed, being led by such an heroic filmstar? smilies/smile.gif

[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Rumil ]

Bill Ferny

02-10-2003, 04:12 PM

LMAO! I meant, of course, Errol Flynn. A little too much Tolkien on the brain, ey? smilies/biggrin.gif

Bill Ferny

02-10-2003, 07:06 PM

I am against the magazine, and the way that it is advertised. I hate the way that it cheapens LOTR, commercialises it. I think that it further ruins the publics view of the books.

I’m not confused. That is exactly what I understand you as saying. I also disagree with it. Just because I disagree with you, doesn’t mean that I misunderstand you.

I’ve already argued why this commercialism is completely justifiable. I’ve already argued that the product isn’t a piece of junk in the eyes of many miniature war game enthusiasts who also happen to be Tolkien fans. I’ve already argued that the price isn’t extortion in comparison to similar products by the same company as found in hobby stores. I’ve already argued that in the grand scheme of things, such a magazine and such an advertisement isn’t going to cheapen the reputation of the books, at least no more than it has already been cheapened by the fantasy genre in general, even though such considerations are strictly confined to the realm of personal opinion. There’s no point in being redundant; simply scroll up.

I will add this, however, whether you like it or not, the commercialism surrounding LotR at the moment is a sign that it has been accepted by society in general (well, at least western society). What does western society do with things it likes… it SELLS and BUYS them! Western society is, after all, the bastion of consumerism.

I did answer your question! You attacked the advertisement as being “geeky”. In your last post, you even went so far as to justify your use of the word, saying that there was no better word for it. That’s fine, there isn’t. Those were geeks in the commercial. Games Workshop sells products to geeks in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States. Geeks are Games Workshop’s bread and butter. However, most geeks, like myself, will be more than up front in admitting who and what we are. Your opinion (and I do understand it!) makes the case that “geeks” are the kind of people you don’t want associating with the LotR. You are welcome to your opinion, of course. That still doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong.

Here is Geekland’s terms! Lower your flags and march straight back to Mainstreamland, stopping by every geek you pass by to beg forgiveness for a hundred years of theft, rape and murder… I’m not finished! Before we let you leave, your commander is to cross that field, present himself to all these geeks, put his head between his legs and kiss his own arse!

[ February 10, 2003: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

Estelyn Telcontar

02-11-2003, 07:05 AM

'Nuff said? It looks to me like the 'discussion' on this thread is going in circles, more personal than objective. I am leaving it open just in case there is something Tolkien relevant to be said that hasn't already been said. Unless that is the case (and it had better be good!), the thread will be closed very soon.

eleanor_niphredil

02-11-2003, 11:36 AM

That still doesn’t change the fact that you are wrong.

Excuse me? I thought you said that I was entitaled to my opinions? When did I ever say that I was right? Surly your opinions are no better than mine? Who are you to say that I am wrong?

However, it is clear that you are never going to come round to my way of thinking, which, by the way, has nothing to do with geeks. Click on the URL at the bottom, scroll down a bit, and you will find out what I think about the term geek. What I am trying to say,is that Estelyn Telcontar is right. We are just going round in circles here. You are never going to agree with me and I am certainly never going to agree with you. so please, if you post again, make sure that you have something worthwhile about Tolkien ( by the way, I dont mean the man himself).

And my question was, why do you deffend it so passionatly?

http://forum.barrowdowns.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=001656&p=2

gilraën

02-23-2003, 05:41 PM

I remember my brother at 10, an ardent fan of Tolkien, he had by then read LOTR, The Hobbit, Simarrilion and Unfinshed Tales, taking up Warhammer models. He did not play the battle games. It was not as prolific then as it is now. It engendered in him a love of art, which he went on to pursue as a serious hobby. There were no specific LOTR models then, it took the movie for Games Workshop to begin that series. It helped to increase his concentration, develop a sense of pride in work well done, and the satisfaction of completing something by himself. My mother encouraged him, as she had done so by introducing him to Tolkien in the first place.

I, now a mother myself, am introducing my 5 year old to Tolkien, books, film and whatever media which will enthuse him in a subject dear to my heart. It is an innocuous past-time when some are not.

The people who play these battle games, I'm pleased to say, are polite and enthusiastic about their hobby. One sunday recently while visiting the shop The battle of Helm's Deep was set up for play by local enthusiasts. My 5 year old asked where was Aragorn, Legolas etc and to my surprise was lifted up and showm each of the models that he asked about. I was warmed to see that. No bad language there, no elitism or rudeness, simply a pride in work well done and a willingness to share the fruits of their labour with a very small but interested child. I have ordered a subscription to this magazine based on the experience I had with my brother and at the shop. I would be delighted for my son to be involved in a hobby which, despite appearing to debase Tolkien, engenders the qualities I would hope for in a young man, enthusiasm, politeness, self worth and pride in work well done. smilies/smile.gif

[ February 23, 2003: Message edited by: gilraën ]