The Treachery of Saruman Diorama

[The Josh]

And may they ever. Tolkien's work deserves a long shelf life -- on my shelves too.

I agree.

 

[woodsy]

And the diorama line, so far, is pushing the subject matter into a very conflict-based teritory that, again, isn't organically representative of the subject matter.

What The over-riding theme of LOTR [ and all of Tolkien's middle -earth based writings] is the struggle of good vs evil. Which makes these dio.'s extremely representative of the subject matter.

 

[FrodoEyes]

Yes, but fighting and violence isn't what LOTR is ALL about. I'll say again - Do you not think Sam carrying Frodo up Mount Doom isn't just as a heart beating moment of drama as Aragorn cutting another Orcs head off?

 

[The Josh]

Yes, but fighting and violence isn't what LOTR is ALL about. I'll say again - Do you not think Sam carrying Frodo up Mount Doom isn't just as a heart beating moment of drama as Aragorn cutting another Orcs head off?

I would buy Sam carrying Frodo in a second just the same as I did Aragorn @ Helm's deep.

 

[The Godfather]

Yes, but fighting and violence isn't what LOTR is ALL about. I'll say again - Do you not think Sam carrying Frodo up Mount Doom isn't just as a heart beating moment of drama as Aragorn cutting another Orcs head off?

I agree with you I would love to see none violent parts of the film like I have said before Frodo and Gandalf with the Wagon would be awesome. Merry and Pip on Treebeard. Boromir and Aragorn in the scene in Rivendell with the shards. I would buy the entire Council of Elrond if they made it. Can you imagine how huge that would be and awesome it would be. I would build a coffee table just to hold it and display it in the middle of the my living room.

 

[gideon]

There are many non-action oriented moments in the films that are wonderous and beautiful. One of my favorites is the four hobbits at the end of the movie back having a pint at the Green Dragon. They have just saved the world but every hobbit around them ignores them far more concerned with the size of the local produce. And Merry, Pippin, Frodo and Sam would have it no other way. That is one beautiful scene.

But would it make a great diorama? Would it sell? Action creates tension which in turn creates drama. I cannot fault SS for making their dioramas centered around some type of action.

But if they ever make that one with the four hobbits I will buy it .

 

[The Josh]

I would have to see Merry and Pip on Treebeard before I bought it. Aragorn and Boromir at Rivendell would be a must as would something like the Hobbits at the Grey Havens.

 

[The Ringer]

This thing looks amazing and I will keep buying every LOTR dio as long as Sideshow keeps dishing out these amazing pieces!:chew

 

[Seretur]

What The over-riding theme of LOTR [ and all of Tolkien's middle -earth based writings] is the struggle of good vs evil. Which makes these dio.'s extremely representative of the subject matter.

It might be "good vs. evil" in blurb-land, but then, so is any fantasy story anywhere... in blurb-land.

In LOTR, Tolkien's story is much more about the passage of a fabulous age, and its replacement by the age of Men, as we know it -- and the attendant losses. It's also much more about the ennoblement of the simple folk (such as hobbits) called upon to do extraordinary deeds. Sure, there is more absolute evil here than is usually found in the world; and there is more absolute good, too. But the bulk of the tale actually takes place in much grayer areas than that. Saruman was good, and crossed the line; Frodo was good, and failed to throw the One Ring into the fire.

Nowhere in all his writings about his creation does Tolkien refer to it as a "struggle of good vs. evil".

Not to belabor the point, anyway: what I meant to say is that whereas Star Wars is chock-full of lightsaber duels, making it perfect for VS. dioramas, LOTR isn't filled with such mano-a-mano conflicts. I understand they appeal to a sizeable amount of the collecting population, but they're still not the overriding subject matter in either the books or the films -- and they're not the way most of the conflicts are resolved in either, more importantly.

And even more simply: I just want some non-fighting dioramas. Am I asking for too much?

 

[woodsy]

It might be "good vs. evil" in blurb-land, but then, so is any fantasy story anywhere... in blurb-land.

In LOTR, Tolkien's story is much more about the passage of a fabulous age, and its replacement by the age of Men, as we know it -- and the attendant losses. It's also much more about the ennoblement of the simple folk (such as hobbits) called upon to do extraordinary deeds. Sure, there is more absolute evil here than is usually found in the world; and there is more absolute good, too. But the bulk of the tale actually takes place in much grayer areas than that. Saruman was good, and crossed the line; Frodo was good, and failed to throw the One Ring into the fire.

In other words it is a tale of good vs evil. Whether that struggle be external or internal [within each of us].

Nowhere in all his writings about his creation does Tolkien refer to it as a "struggle of good vs. evil".?

Did he really have to? The struggle of good vs evil is so obvious in his writings I imagine he really didn't feel it necessary to use those exact words to relay what he was trying to communicate.

Not to belabor the point, anyway: what I meant to say is that whereas Star Wars is chock-full of lightsaber duels, making it perfect for VS. dioramas, LOTR isn't filled with such mano-a-mano conflicts. I understand they appeal to a sizeable amount of the collecting population, but they're still not the overriding subject matter in either the books or the films -- and they're not the way most of the conflicts are resolved in either, more importantly.
And even more simply: I just want some non-fighting dioramas. Am I asking for too much?

Conflict whether it be external or internal certainly is the over-riding theme of both the books and the movies. Without it we wouldn't be discussing this right now because Tolkien wouldn't have written the books, and even if he did they would have been like a Seinfeld episode [about nothing]. And there is no way we ever would have gotten the movies.


Really, that's not how most of the conflicts were resolved. Hmmm let's see, we had the destruction of Orthanc by the Ents, the near destruction of Rohan by Saruman and his Uruk hai, the subsequent obliteration of the Uruk hai by the Huorns. We had the near destruction of Gondor by the Haradhrim, Easterlings, Orcs and all the other forces of Sauron. We had Orcs trying to kill humans hobbits, elves, and dwarves every chance they got and vice versa. Shall I go on? I'm not sure what books you read or movies you saw but you might want to go back and check the titles

Is it asking too much wanting non-fighting diorama's ...of course not. There were some great and truly memorable scene's that did not involve conflict and I am sure as time goes by we will see some of them.

 

[tomandshell]

Interesting article from BBC News:

At 7.30am on 1 July 1916, officers blew their whistles to signal the start of the attack.

As 11 British divisions clambered out of their trenches and walked slowly towards the enemy lines, German machine guns opened fire, causing wholesale carnage.

The first day of that battle was the bloodiest in the whole history of the British Army. By the end of the day, the British had suffered 60,000 casualties; almost 20,000 were dead, including 60% of all the officers involved.

One of those who survived that horrific first assault, and who endured the prolonged ghastliness of the months of fighting that followed, was the young JRR Tolkien.

.....


Tolkien had just graduated from Oxford with a first class degree in literature when he saw his first active service at the Somme. From July 1916 until he was invalided out with trench fever at the end of October, he experienced the full relentless ghastliness of day after day of trench life under fire - the discomfort, the cold, the mud, the lice, the fear, the unspeakable horrors witnessed.

He had taken comfort from the fact that he was fighting alongside his three oldest and dearest friends from his school-days - a quartet of gifted would-be-poets who hoped to become outstanding literary men. But by November, two of those friends were dead.

Tolkien and the one other surviving member of their "club" were never able to rebuild a closeness shattered by the enormity of what had occurred - by the sense of total loss, the obliteration of the band of friends almost before their creative lives had begun.

Imagination is a uniquely human attribute. Freely exercised, it allows each of us to transform our everyday experience, elevating it into something more consolingly meaningful. How, then, does the human imagination cope with trauma of the kind Tolkien and his fellow-soldiers experienced in 1916?

We might expect those months of unremitting horror in the trenches of the Somme to have fed into, and coloured, the ferocious battles and scenes of slaughter in Tolkien's three-part Lord of the Rings (begun in the 1930s), or in the Fall of Gondolin which he began writing while convalescing in the spring of 1917.

Glimpses of the battlefield do occur within Tolkien's epic tapestry - Morgoth's monstrous iron dragons surely owe something to the tanks first used in combat in World War I, which terrified the horses of the cavalry. When he describes the desolation of the battlefield, strewn with the mangled corpses of friend and foe, at the end of combat, we sense that Tolkien has himself witnessed that bleak devastation.

But in the main, Tolkien's imagination swerves away from Wilfred Owen's despair, mining the depths of his own sense of waste and loss, to salvage from it emotional, spiritual and moral meaning. This imaginative determination finds its way deep into the narrative fabric of his tales of Middle Earth.

In spite of the horror of total war, Tolkien chooses in his writing to focus his attention on the redemptive power of individual human action offered unconditionally as part of a common cause. Frodo Baggins is each of us aspiring to do good within modest limits.

"I should like to save the Shire, if I could," says Frodo early in his quest. "Though there have been times when I thought the inhabitants too stupid and dull for words."

Tolkien's epic works are large-scale memorials to the modest struggles of ordinary people doing their best for good against the forces of inhumanity. They are a brilliantly achieved exemplar of the way the human imagination can configure a better future even in the aftermath of senseless, bloody destruction.

As such they sustain and offer solace. In 1940, Tolkien spoke of how "to be caught in youth by 1914" was a "hideous" experience. "I was pitched into it all just when I was full of stuff to write, and of things to learn; and never picked it all up again."

Yet his enduringly popular works - especially the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings - have given generations of readers an Ariadne's thread for their emotional yearnings, guiding them through the labyrinth of an ordinary life - giving it shape, giving it meaning, and above all, giving them hope.

 

[Seretur]

You should read John Garth's book, Tolkien and the Great War, Tom.

And Woodsy -- I really can't go into this argument right now. All I wanted to point out is why I thought the "vs." type of collectibles isn't ideally appropriate for this property, not develop a theory on Tolkien's attitude to war and its place in the larger concerns of his story.

I'm glad we agree on the need for other kinds of dioramas, at least.

 

[Figurefreaks]

You should read John Garth's book, Tolkien and the Great War, Tom.

Are you talking to me Vlad?

 

[tomandshell]

I will have to check out that book.

I appreciate that while conflict is at the heart of LOTR, it is not conflict for conflict's sake. Tolkien doesn't celebrate violence or conflict, but uses it to focus on themes of heroism, sacrifice, friendship, courage, etc. Some watch the movies or read the book and come away thrilled by the epic battles, and others see past the conflict to the deeper issues and themes. Some value both.

In a similar way, it's interesting to see people who watch movies like Patton or Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down and half of them come out saying they've just seen an anti-war film and the other half want to enlist. The interesting thing about art (well, about good art) is that the audience can come away with differing experiences and interpretations. LOTR means many different things to many different people. Tolkien has released it to the public and we have made it our own, and in its relatively brief life so far it has already said many different things to many different generations.

A VS. diorama is going to appeal to a certain slice of LOTR fans, and a different kind of "non-conflict" piece will appeal to some others. Each represents a different element of what Tolkien put on the page. While he himself might have ideally favored certain scenes or moments to celebrate (and encapsulate for all time in a collectible) as representative of the overall story and its themes, some fans will be drawn towards others instead.

To me, the Gandalf the Grey LSB that I recently received is a very iconic piece that represents everything the character means to me, and I would prefer to have it on display in my collection over the VS. diorama if forced to make a choice. But I will actually enjoy having them both if possible.

 

[Seretur]

Too many Toms, too few Vlads in this forum.

Mr. Andshell, spoken truly and fairly, not to mention eloquently. They should make you a mod around here.

 

[NASEDO]

This is the Dio we need

 

[NASEDO]

The LOTR could be interrupted in alot of different ways. I would rather see non-violence dioramas. Even with this piece, I like it but I would also like to take Gandalf off, It might look better with just Saruman.

The LOTR was all about the Hobbits. Not being well known in middle earth, being small, and being able to withstand the ring. It was like "no matter how small you are life is important" I forget its been awhile. Can't wait to re-watch the movies.

 

[Mesa]

Sideshow Weta = Classic

All else after = bolt on's

Not to say the 'bolt on's' are not good, they clearly are extemely good but to compare the two in the same category is futile. The weta stuff was 'original' the Sideshow stuff being produced now is 'seeking to be original'. There is a difference.

ps. the only original stat that Sideshow have come up with is the Faramir 12" and look what has happened to that!

I'm just catching up on the latest posts of this thread, so maybe this has been covered, but I had to reply. Weta Lurtz = ehhhh. Sideshow Lurtz = cream my pants. Well, maybe an over statement there, but you catch my drift.

I like both offerings and hope SS keeps it coming on all fronts: PF, 12", Vs. dios.

Plus SS/W was a little too early for some people to pick up on, so SS continuing effort is greatly appreciated.

 

[Fritz]

The newsletter implies it's getting close to selling out but I don't see a low quantity bar.

 

[Mesa]

This thing looks amazing and I will keep buying every LOTR dio as long as Sideshow keeps dishing out these amazing pieces!:chew

Amen brother. Nice avatar.