Statue The Crack of Doom Diorama

[The Josh]

Nice job Trev!

I love both book and movies. I'm not gonna personally say no to something just because it doesn't capture both. Otherwise I wouldn't have gotten Lurtz who is a cool looking character and a well made piece. I'm a fan of LOTR

 

[gabberjawa]

Kudos Trevolver! I like what I see!

 

[The Josh]

Good God. PJ didn't understand that? How does anyone really know? I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that honestly. What was done was to help bring even the casual movie goer into that scene if they where too slow to understand. I didn't get all riled up on this change and find it worth getting my panties all in a wad. As far as PJ forgetting about the story telling. PLEASE that's a freaking joke at best. If someone can do better go do it yourself!

 

[Fritz]

I'm still not sure I want another Frodo or Gollum. Weta Frodo and PF Frodo will do and the Weta Gollum & Smeagol is a good enough representation. But I'll still probably order and decide when it's in hand. The main issue for me will most likely be size, I'm really entrenched with Premium Format. I love 1/4 scale.

Trev or Dusty, can either of you guys give us a hint as to what the scale is? 1/6 maybe?

 

[Seretur]

This was really cool to see! I think the video is nothing short of amazing! what a swwwwweeeeeeet way to preview a piece. kudos!

This was a fun piece to sculpt. very challenging. I really like what Tom said about it a couple messages back.

When you're sculpting something you're often asking yourself what's going on in a character's head, and in this case, what's the purpose behind the struggle. It's definitely not a celebration of human triumph, but I really got into the idea of weakness.

And yes, the title of that portion of the dvd is Crack of Doom, I remember!
Trev

Your sculpting seems impeccable -- it's probably the first truly successful Elijah Wood likeness Sideshow has ever produced.

But it's a terrible travesty of the very reason Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings, and for that, I will never own it.

 

[RoboDad]

Nice job Trev!

I love both book and movies. I'm not gonna personally say no to something just because it doesn't capture both. Otherwise I wouldn't have gotten Lurtz who is a cool looking character and a well made piece. I'm a fan of LOTR

Sorry Josh, but I am in absolute disagreement with you on this one. There is a huge difference, at least for me, between a character who is added to the story to fill a gap (usually created by the necessary compression of a story from book to film), and a deliberate change to an essential scene for no other reason than ignorance of the author's intended meaning. I love both the books and movies as well as anyone, but when there is a choice to be made between them, the books win by a country mile every time.

Sideshow blew it badly on this one. They could have produced a piece that every fan would love. Instead, they chose a piece that will polarize the fans, and will surely result in lower sales.

 

[RoboDad]

Good God. PJ didn't understand that? How does anyone really know? I think it's a bit of a stretch to assume that honestly. What was done was to help bring even the casual movie goer into that scene if they where too slow to understand. I didn't get all riled up on this change and find it worth getting my panties all in a wad. As far as PJ forgetting about the story telling. PLEASE that's a freaking joke at best. If someone can do better go do it yourself!

How does anyone know? Because I heard him say it with my own ears. He was asked specifically about the Christian allegory in the books, and he said that I didn't see it, and didn't care to.

And in this case, NOTHING would be far better than what we have gotten, so I guess I have done better.

 

[The Josh]

There is a huge difference, at least for me, between a character who is added to the story to fill a gap (usually created by the necessary compression of a story from book to film), and a deliberate change to an essential scene for no other reason than ignorance of the author's intended meaning. Sorry Josh, but I am in absolute disagreement with you on this one.

Ignorance? Ok, so you have all the insight then as do some others it appears to know more? The change was made to help with the casual movie goer. I dealt with it and moved on. It did not effect my thought of PJ nor the movies.

Sideshow blew it, plain and simple. They could have produce a piece a\that every fan would love. Instead, they chose a piece that will polarize the fans, and will surely result in lower sales.

Blew it? What did they blow? Are they supposed to base this piece off the book? Is that license available to make pieces off of? I doubt it so they have to make it off the movie. It's a piece that fits this type of make this line honestly. It's not my #1 choice but I don't think blowing it comes close to being accurate. Some will like it. Some won't. Welcome to collecting.

 

[The Josh]

How does anyone know? Because I heard him say it with my own ears. He was asked specifically about the Christian allegory in the books, and he said that I didn't see it, and didn't care to.

OK, so he didn't see it. BFD! It all depends on how religious you are. I guess I don't look down on him because of that. My faith teaches me not to.

And in this case, NOTHING would be far better than what we have gotten, so I guess I have done better.

Ok if that makes you feel better.

 

[DannieDarKo]

THE CRACK OF DOOM!

Wonder when the dealers will have this up for order!

 

[RoboDad]

Ignorance? Ok, so you have all the insight then as do some others it appears to know more? The change was made to help with the casual movie goer. I dealt with it and moved on. It did not effect my thought of PJ nor the movies.

That's your choice. It did affect my experience. I cringe every time that scene plays out. Sorry you can't accept that. Maybe you should just "move on."

Blew it? What did they blow? Are they supposed to base this piece off the book? Is that license available to make pieces off of? I doubt it so they have to make it off the movie. It's a piece that fits this type of make this line honestly. It's not my #1 choice but I don't think blowing it comes close to being accurate. Some will like it. Some won't. Welcome to collecting.

Since you apparently didn't read what I posted before responding, I'll say it again. They blew it because they chose a piece that will result in fewer pieces sold. I won't be buying one. I know of several others who won't be buying one. Many who give the books a higher place in their minds and hearts will be less likely to buy one. They could have chosen a piece that would have delighted a far greater percentage of fans. Why those chose not to is beyond me.

 

[Darklord Dave]

Excellent job Trev! It truly does look great and considering how small it is the likenesses are amazing.


_______
As to the "meaning" of the scene - kudos to PJ for making it accessible to a modern audience. If what Seretur said was really the author's intention (and we get in trouble assuming that) then it would ruin the scene for me.

 

[Seretur]

Thanks for posting that, Robo! I'm honored. (Even if I did write "assassionations". )

And Josh -- there's absolutely nothing wrong with loving this part of the movie. But it just happens to be a moment that, for Tolkien, represented the very reason for writing the book. Not just a moment, the moment. It was present in his conception even before such things as Rohan or Gondor were even thought of, much less invented. And he wrote about it extensively in his (published) letters.

PJ and Fran and Philippa had to be aware of it -- they had the enormous luck of being able to translate Tolkien's story to the screen with sufficient (and unprecedented) resources, and they had consultants and experts galore, even if they physically didn't have time to read all of what Tolkien wrote.

Even then, they have the spur-of-the-moment excuse. But for Sideshow to pick this moment, out of so many other, more iconic, and frankly more diorama-like ones from the movies, more than three years after the premiere of ROTK -- I just don't know how they can justify that. Sorry.

 

[RoboDad]

OK, so he didn't see it. BFD! It all depends on how religious you are. I guess I don't look down on him because of that. My faith teaches me not to.

So, are you just in spin mode, or what? You asked a question, I answered it. That's no reason for you to start looking down on me, criticizing my faith, or pretending to be more righteous.

 

[carbo-fation]

Great work Trev! This is the best Elija likeness yet!!

 

[The Godfather]

Excellent job Trev! It truly does look great and considering how small it is the likenesses are amazing.


_______
As to the "meaning" of the scene - kudos to PJ for making it accessible to a modern audience. If what Seretur said was really the author's intention (and we get in trouble assuming that) then it would ruin the scene for me.

Ohhhhh the Dark lord knows what what size it is. Holding out on us David details my good man details

 

[The Josh]

That's your choice. It did affect my experience. I cringe every time that scene plays out. Sorry you can't accept that. Maybe you should just "move on."

I didn't say I can't accept that. I just don't agree with you and and voicing it. Sorry.

Since you apparently didn't read what I posted before responding, I'll say it again. They blew it because they chose a piece that will result in fewer pieces sold. I won't be buying one. I know of several others who won't be buying one. Many who give the books a higher place in their minds and hearts will be less likely to buy one. They could have chosen a piece that would have delighted a far greater percentage of fans. Why those chose not to is beyond me.

Probably a few pieces but there are a lot of movies fans that collect so it won't cause too many non-sales. Both hold the same high place for me in my heart. I'm about LOTR plain and simple.

Rumi said it pretty well IMO

Yes, it does show the change from the book, but it also depicts a pivotal moment in the film that strikes a very visceral note for me. But, then, I've NEVER viewed the movies as anything but an interpretation of the book....to me, they're separate entities.

 

[DannieDarKo]

I personally love this pose. It reminds me of when my 8 brothers and sisters and I would fight over the last slice of bread. Yep, yesterday was a day to remember....

 

[twistedfreak]

The sculpting is awesome. This will be a cool line for you LOTR fanatics.

 

[The Josh]

So, are you just in spin mode, or what? You asked a question, I answered it. That's no reason for you to start looking down on me, criticizing my faith, or pretending to be more righteous.

Nope no spin. Your post IMO was judging his faith by just assuming that because he didn't care he didn't get it. I'm not looking down on you just making a point.

And Josh -- there's absolutely nothing wrong with loving this part of the movie. But it just happens to be a moment that, for Tolkien, represented the very reason for writing the book. Not just a moment, the moment. It was present in his conception even before such things as Rohan or Gondor were even thought of, much less invented. And he wrote about it extensively in his (published) letters.

I didn't say I loved it. I just said I dealt with it. It's pivatol as Rumi said.

PJ and Fran and Philippa had to be aware of it -- they had the enormous luck of being able to translate Tolkien's story to the screen with sufficient (and unprecedented) resources, and they had consultants and experts galore, even if they physically didn't have time to read all of what Tolkien wrote.

They choose to change it. I'm not saying its the best idea nor that I agree with it though it played out well on screen. I'm saying that he choose to not play up the religous aspect I guess and go with something that wouldn't make the slower movie goers go "huh".

Even then, they have the spur-of-the-moment excuse. But for Sideshow to pick this moment, out of so many other, more iconic, and frankly more diorama-like ones from the movies, more than three years after the premiere of ROTK -- I just don't know how they can justify that. Sorry.

It's the start of the line to the MOVIES. Some of these pieces will not be ones that are tied into the book directly. I don't get why everyone is getting all pissy over that honestly. As we all know not every part of the movie was faithful to the book. So therefor not every piece will be. So are they to never make a piece that isn't faithful to both? Then it will be a very small and short line overall. Don't ya think?