Post by Michael O'Brien on Sept 26, 2013 16:45:07 GMT
This vote is an open vote so you can see the current status before adding your vote. Please don't forget to add a comment about why you are backing a particular idea or why you think another idea may be less desirable (politely). You are free to add photos or illustrations at any time, even if you did not originally add the idea you like yourself. This vote will expire on October 2nd.
I particularly like the old lady. It is highly original in my eyes. Many figures look quite interchangeable if the character in question does not have a highly distinctive feature itself (e.g. the extremely fat older Bombur). When I look at the various Northmen figures (as an example), many look quite similar (apart from particular pose and equipment of course), and it is not the figure itself which makes the one an Eomer, the second an unnamed Rohan knight and the third a Hama. For two people with different views, the one officially labelled as "Hama" would be the perfect Eomer - and vice versa for a second person. Thus only the label printed on the packaging is the "distinctive" feature. For many orcs it is similar. For example, I could not identify anything particular in the Mauhur figure, which would make it exactly this character. Almost any other Uruk (or big orc) figure would serve the representation of Mauhur equally well, depending on personal views (of course we know almost nothing about Mauhur, but it is a good example). Thus something which makes a figure tell its own distinct story without the need for a label to explain what or whom s/he represents, leaves a much stronger impact IMO. The lady feeding chickens is an excellent example of this. In addition, despite some older figurines, there is still a clear lack - IMHO - of civilian minis in everyday activities. Therefore my vote goes without question to the old lady!
Visit [url=http://www.othermindsmagazine.com]Other Minds Magazine[/url], an unofficial magazine for roleplaying and scholarly interests in J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-earth and beyond.
Well, Tolwen, if I followed your way of argueing that would lead to the conclusion that about 90% of Mithril figures might be "interchangeable" as you call it. The only way to avoid that is to give certain figures some characteristics based on Tolkien's descriptions. Of course (and fortunately) one cannot find detailed desciptions of each and all characters in Tolkien's writings. So what to do when you want to distinguish them? I think you'll have to name them. Without that would you be able to identify Thorin(M363), Balin (M364) and Gloin (M365), for example? - The only thing connecting those figures with Tolkien's writings are their names and the way how Chris Tubb visualised them from his point of view and his imagination.
Well, Tolwen, if I followed your way of argueing that would lead to the conclusion that about 90% of Mithril figures might be "interchangeable" as you call it.
Yes, that's right. And I don't mean it derogative or negative but as a fact. As you say - often we don't have any detailed descriptions, so it's indeed up to the artist and that also means that people from a similar cultural background look quite similar by default. Thus this "interchangeability" is IMO unavoidable.
IMO it is also good, as it gives a lot of freedom for the individual painter/diorama builder to name and place the minis according to his or her own vision (e.g. in a diorama) without much need for conversion or modification.
But to come back to my main point, a figure like the old lady represents something very special and original: First, a civilian in everyday chores (very rare in minis anyway) which is good in itself (for my taste). Second, the mini tells its own story which is IMO almost more important.
Of course (and fortunately) one cannot find detailed desciptions of each and all characters in Tolkien's writings. So what to do when you want to distinguish them? I think you'll have to name them. Without that would you be able to identify Thorin(M363), Balin (M364) and Gloin (M365), for example?
IMO the only way is to give a Thorin a special piece of equipment that is very "un-dwarvish" and distinctive for this character - the Noldo sword Orcrist. And indeed Chris gave Thorin in M155 exactly this distinction. The other Thorins are indeed typical dwarvish and thus in principle not different from the other armoured dwarven lords you mention. I could mix them freely (name-wise) and there would be no obvious fact to prove me wrong (AFAIK). IMO that's not a bad thing as it offers a wide range of possibilities for individual designing in dioramas or labels
I am only bothered if descriptions that are provided by Tolkien are disregarded for whatever reason. But this goes far beyond the scope of this thread
Tolwen, there was no harm intended with my latest entry and I could not take any harm from your answer (as there was none). We certainly do agree on the fact that in the MS-series those common people are not well-presented. (as it was once in some of the good-old M-series). See ... is there any difference between a Haradan musician and an old Eridorian woman feeding chicken? ... or to a very nice wine-trador. cheers Theobald
Thank you Tolwen for your support to the old lady ;o)
I agree with Theobald, the bellydancer and the wine-trader are also very nice civilian miniatures. I have both in my collection.
Civilian miniatures are not so common but I like them because I guess Tolkien's universe was much more than wars and soldiers and the way Chris imagines and designs them is quite close to how I imagine them when Reading JRRT's books or writing my MERP stories.
Promise to post some new ideas the upcomning months.