Héra, Daughter Of Helm Previewed For Middle-earth SBG
December 13, 2024 by brennon
Games Workshop have a couple of new miniature previews for their new edition of the Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game. We've seen the Forge World resin version of Héra from later on War Of The Rohirrim but here is the plastic version of Héra, Daughter Of Helm that you'll be able to get your hands on soon.
Héra, Daughter Of Helm // Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game
This is Héra in better times mounted on the back of her horse, Ashere. The set also comes with a version of Héra on foot and the plastic kit allows you to build her with or without her cape. I think a cap maketh a hero so I will probably end up going with that option.
Héra, Daughter Of Helm With Cape // Middle-earth Strategy Battle Game
She takes on the role of a Hero Of Fortitude in the Army Of Edoras and can now be added to your games alongside brothers Haleth and Hama to stop the usurpers from claiming her father's throne. There are still a few more plastic kits that feel like they are on the way, especially for representing Helm Hammerhand before the battle at the Hornburg. We shall have to wait and see what Games Workshop reveals over the next few weeks.
What do you make of this version of Héra?
"She takes on the role of a Hero Of Fortitude in the Army Of Edoras and can now be added to your games alongside brothers Haleth and Hama..."
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
Supported by (Turn Off)
![Warcradle Studios Reveal TINY New 10mm Festive Marker! [Updated]](https://images.beastsofwar.com/2025/11/christmas-kyle-main-600-338.jpg)
Her, eh?
It is better than the first model of Helm’s unnamed daughter. I don’t hate it, but it doesn’t really look like Rohirrim attire or armour. Other than that it is a perfectly good model for any fantasy setting.
Give her a boltgun instead of a sword and she’d fit into any leather fetish SciFi setting 😀
You’re not wrong …
I agree. Nice model for a fantasy rpg if you want a foot and mounted version…
But she doesn’t look like she’s from rohan… or any other part of middle earth.
I prefer the first one, at least that one looked vaguely like it might belong somewhere in Middle Earth. This one looks like it belongs in Eberron captaining a Sky Ship.
I have just seen the movie, and I don’t care if this character looks like someone out of Tolkien’s world or not. She will always be Helm’s unnamed daughter, and that is not something that I wished for. If I were to choose between this model and the first, I would buy this one, because it is not a bad miniature by far, and I can use it for several settings, even (as mentioned by a member) for the Grimdark with a weapon change. Having said that, I was actually thinking of an Eberron Sky Captain – well said. I might even use this model as an exotic vampire hunter for Silver Bayonet. The fact that she comes mounted as well is a strong plus for me.
They are going to charge extra for the option to add the cape.
What are you talking about? This is Games Workshop, they’d never do anything like that!
Paint the hair grey/white and you have yourself a witcher XD
Heck yeah, you would! @sundancer
Ha! Yeah, you would!
And the award for the least middle earth looking miniature of all time goes to…
HERA!
Seriously what the actual fcuk is that? It looks like it was shat straight out of a D&D players handbook
Nothing wrong with the mini, it’s nice and all – but I 100% agree. It’s just so random.
I mean, I might disagree with there being nothing wrong with the mini. I’m sure it’s lovely if you like “modern fantasy”, which I don’t. It doesn’t look particularly Tolkienesque nor is it in a style that I hold any particular love for.
I could definitely see the new generation of D&D fans enjoying it
Ok; I think it reminds me of the Dragonlance style of art – which is definitely a few decades old. Not the new style.
Opinions, eh?
Please, that is a wild exaggeration. Half the design Jackson’s team made up for The Hobbit (and which GW produced as models) look even more out of place due to their outlandishness. Hera’s is just an aesthetic choice, but thanks to the Hobbit we have repeater bolt throwers on chariots, ogres and troll brutes.
I completely disagree. There were one or two designs from the Hobbit that poor – the goat chariot for example. The elk that Thranduil was riding perhaps. Dain Ironfoot himself was a CGI nightmare. But the general design of the Dwarfs, Elves, the Kingdom of Dale all looked reasonably good and carried on the design traditions of the previous films. But even the bits of the Hobbit that I mentioned as feeling particularly egregious, still took their design cues from the bits of the world that they were affiliated with. So Dain Ironfoot still looked visually like the other Iron Hills Dwarfs. The stupid goat chariot also looked very much of Dwarvish design in keeping with everything else we see that is Dwarvish. This miniature looks absolutely nothing like the rest of the Rohan faction (and maybe that is a design choice by New Line, not by GW), it looks nothing like the historical culture on which Rohan was themed. Instead it looks like moern fantasy, with bits of leather supposedly looking like armour, random straps and buckles where none are needed. She looks for close to the pictures or armour showcased in the D&D 3.5 rulebook than an Anglo Saxon or Anglo Norse Princess – which is what Jackson themed the Rohirrim on. It’s an absolute terrible design, regardless of who is at fault for it.
I watched the movie it fits in fine there, and remember this is for a story about dynasty dying out due to folly set 200 years before the war of the ring, meaning the outfits shouldn’t look too much like anything from the other movies (just bare reference at most).
Also I have honestly heard old folks complain about Peter Jackson making the Middle Earth less colorful than it was in the books (and this is more colorful) and lets remember Tom Bombadil and his crazy yellow boots, so I don’t think we can say “middle earth looking” so much as Angus McBride’s or Peter Jackson interpretation of Middle Earth which what you and the other beasties of war are complaining about it not matching up to.
What’s with the weird underboob belt? Is that a Rohan bra?
And the pose on foot makes me think Lord Flashheart from Blackadder.
How would you know this was a fantasy miniature without a random belt? Duh.
I think they are a rather lovely pair of miniatures.
They put this nonstarter in plastic, but not their new Old World wizards? It’s a good thing this plastic crack sells itself, I’m pretty sure the GW ship is being steered by somebody’s feet while they read a book.
They can’t read a book while doing anything else. Come on. 🤣
No, no and nope! I even watched the film and still no. It does not fit the lore, and this is just a money grab.
Was the movie ok?
It could have been good but Hollywood cannot get out of their way of putting forth its agenda items. There are some small part that refer back to the lore that were well told, but otherwise the rest was a Hollywood agenda film. While Hera was not exactly a Marie Sue, it was all about an agenda. I had free tickets so at least I did not pay. I would wait until it ends up on streaming.
What’s “agenda items”?
@holly indeed, “agenda” – but @turbocooler reveals the clue with his misogynistic reference to a Mary Sue type character. People can’t just enjoy a show, anymore, without attaching conspiracy theories that the movie is meant to influence people in some subversive manner. It’s tiresome to hear about “the agenda”.
Yep, that’s what I interpreted as the meaning too. I’m just sorry that strong female characters are so threatening to some people, how limited their worldview must be.
Not threatend, but I do not believe in unrealistic characters.
@grantinvanman it’s got very little to do with feeling “threatened” by strong female leads. I will not, in most cases, watch films centred on “girl boss” characters, not because I feel threatened by them but because they are usually poorly written and are an indicator of an poor story. I generally find them to be highly unbelievable (yes, even in fantasy shows), totally unrelatable as people because they bear absolutely no resemblance anyone in real life and for the most part, utterly unlikable as characters as the writers try too hard to make them bad ass and they end up just coming across as men with breasts and bad attitudes. They also completely undermines the concept of “strong female” because the message it actually sends out is that in order to be strong, you have to be masculine, which is utter nonsense. Furthermore, the stories generally suffer in order to support these characters with plot generally being driven more by a need to show off the character than to create a meaningful story. This comes in many forms, from decisions and dialogue that make no logical sense or events occurring with no explanation or that ultimately do not further the story all of which ultimately create opportunities for the lead characters to be seen to be better than anyone else. Obviously any of these things can and often do happen in any film and they are always to the detriment of the final product. The problem with modern day Hollywood is that ALL of these things happen in almost every film and they are present throughout rather than being an occasional occurrence. Does that mean I feel threatened? Of course not, but it DOES mean I won’t enjoy it. I have no desire or obligation to waste time or indeed money (because a night at the cinema ain’t cheap) watching something that is not actually entertaining and that I won’t enjoy. Sadly the probability at the moment is that when film or TV show promotes itself and leads with “we have a strong female lead”, it will not have a good story supporting it and so I generally won’t take the chance, and I also have the right to express dismay and frustration at the poor quality of modern TV and film.
There are ways to write strong female characters with making them masculine. There are even ways to make female action heroes without the need for them to be seen beating up and throwing around men twice their size and weight. Go and watch The Expanse or even Battlestar Galactica for examples of absolutely outstanding female characters, even the incredibly Tomboyish and gender swapped Starbuck. President Laura Roslyn in Battlestar Galactica and Secretary General Chrisjen Avasarala in the Expanse are both incredibly strong, powerful women, inspirational leaders and yet retain their femininity while doing so. You can compare those two with the absolute train wreck of a character Admiral Holdo from The Last Jedi to see the difference between good and bad strong female characters. So it’s absolutely possible, but there are very few writers or studios that are either willing or capable of doing so at the moment.
I will caveat this with saying I haven’t seen the War of the Rohirrim and I don’t intend to. So I don’t know whether Herà is a Mary Sue or not. Given current Hollywood trends (and having seen interviews with the writers) I would say the balance of probability would suggest that she quite possibly is and the European trailer certainly made it look that way (but apparently the Japanese one did not). I have seen interviews leaning both ways on that particular front. However overall, reviews for the show are not encouraging and the aren’t really inspiring me to go watch it. For a film based off little more than a footnote in the appendices of the Lord of the Rings, that I never had any real urge to explore further, there’s just no incentive to do so.
@onlyonepinman – hey, you watch what you want to, but you’re missing a lot of good stories just out of misogynistic blindness. There’s no other way to describe what you’re talking about. Have a good one, eh?
Given the number of shows I have started watching and then stopped before getting to the end and the number absolutely eye-watering financial losses made on alleged blockbuster films recently, I am reasonably certain that I am not. It’s not like I never watch anything at all you know and these are patterns I have been seeing for almost a decade now, not a recent phenomenon. My instincts are usually correct.
@grantinvanman Interesting that you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a misogynist for no reason other than not enjoying poor quality stories because they have female leads. All you are doing is creating a strawman argument – you haven’t provided any evidence to support that claim whereas I have given a fairly detailed explanation why I dislike the “girl boss” trope, prevalent in modern media and given some good examples of what goof, strong female characters might look like. Maybe you don’t feel the need to justify why you personally DO like such shows, but to simply label someone who disagrees with you as a misogynist, with no real support for it, really just makes it look as though you don’t really have any valid points to add and are deflecting from that by pointing out “the real problem” – which is obviously sexist, racist bigots like me, right? We actually agree that good stories are good stories – I will watch female led stories. But most of what comes out of Hollywood simply isn’t good storytelling.
“misogynistic blindness” — please give examples instead of just gaslighting. If all you can respond with is personal attacks you have already lost your argument.
The whole “agenda” thing is hardly a conspiracy theory when film studios are completely open about the fact that the are doing it (see Kathleen Kennedy and Jennifer Salke by way of an examples)
But what is the “agenda”?
It’s the conspiracy theory that misogynists and those who are intolerant have decided that the world they like is being invaded by other views, other (insert whatever you want here), and it threatens to shatter their glass fortress of solitude. People who are too afraid of their shadows and believe they are somehow losing their own identity if they won’t be brave enough to adjust their narrow lens.
It’s … “woke culture”. There, I said it. It’s the words everyone has been dancing around here.
And it’s SO TIRESOME to keep encountering the thinly-veiled hatred, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, that comes with resentment of the “agenda”.
Sadly, I think you are right 🙁 Thanks for outlining that @grantinvanman
I’m going to bow out of these comments as sadly I think some of the views here are too entrenched, and there’s nothing to be gained from discussing with people who are so firmly of the view that women are ruining “their” spaces.
I’ve been in this hobby since 1987 – collecting and painting miniatures, playing games and enjoying all aspects of this tabletop hobby – and am not going anywhere. In terms of Lord of the Rings miniatures – I had some of the Jew Goodwin sculpted Citadel Uruk-Hai from the first time around (and they were awesome).
Women, trans people, people of colour and minorities have always been in this hobby, and have always sought out and sought representation in these worlds.
@holly couldn’t agree more.
And at this point, I’m with you: once the trenches are dug, these types of discussions tend to become, as I said, just tiresome.
People are people. Good stories are good stories. Simple as.
@holly criticism of this miniature and the film that inspired it is hardly an attempt to exclude women from the hobby. Nor is it a form of hatred.
The agenda, if you are wondering, is to increase the number of female led films, which is not, in and of itself, a problem. The problem is entirely down to the way studios are trying to achieve that objective (which creates awful, unlikable and unrelatable female characters and for the most part denigrates males and masculinity) and then the subsequent blaming of fans, particularly male fans, when they reject the films and choose not to go and watch films as if somehow people are obliged to do so
@holly It is very sad that you have this opinion. Nobody wants women or minorities to leave the hobby. No one! @onlyonepinman is talking about a trend that has been recurring in the entertainment industry at least since 2016. It does have to do with ‘woke culture’ but the problem with this is whether you understand the term from the ‘left’ or the ‘right’ . Neither of the two are bad or wrong. The problem, at this point in time, is coming from the ‘far left’ institutionalization of the term.
So, for example, feminism is essentially a good thing. We all want our daughters, sisters and mothers to have equal rights and opportunities. On the other hand, ‘third wave feminism’ is one of those ideologies that I call toxic. One of its claims is that men and women are the same. Any sane person knows that men and women are different and have different strengths and weaknesses – that is why we complement each other.
Since 2016, the so-called ‘girl boss’ and ‘mary-sue’ movies have become an issue. They are also all flops and financial disasters. Nobody wants movies with strong female leads to be disasters – so why is this happening. Have you ever asked yourself this. Only since January (roughly) 2024, has the entertainment industry finally come to terms with this, and only after loosing literally billions of possible profits, has it now eliminated all its D.E.I. departments.
Nobody in the hobby dislikes strong women. On the contrary, we actually love strong female characters – Leia, Riply, Wonder Woman, and the list goes on. Men and women are strong in different ways, and when you try to over lap them, it tends to backfire, especially if the story and characters are written badly. If you want to see what strong women generally look like in medieval like fantasy check out the first three seasons of ‘Game of Thrones’.
Women who act like men can also be good, but these are rare and far between, and tend to depend on the story and very good writing. Take Brianne of Tarth, Xena and Red Sonja. All great warrior women characters that were done and executed properly. In their stories, they do not need constant affirmation, they all have a story arc that shows actually growth, they struggle with their faults and weakness – and they never need to have the men around them act like imbeciles to prompt their worth.
The vast majority of so-called ‘girl boss’ and ‘mary-sue’ films have failed to portray what I have outline. In fact, even women do not watch these movies, and that is why their failure is so poignant.
So please do not feel excluded or unwanted, nobody here wants you to go anywhere. As a hobbyist you have earned a place here like the rest of us.
I honestly hope this little rant make you feel better. 🙂
– thinly-veiled hatred, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, that comes with resentment of the “agenda” – this is uncalled for. With great respect, I think you don’t really understand what @onlyonepinman is referring to. You don’t really understand the term ‘woke’ or what ‘woke culture’ is, nor the so called ‘agenda’ which; the people who support it have laid out in their own words at higher educational levels. I assure you I am non of the epitaphs you are blindly throwing around.
@nightrunner I wouldn’t get too hung up on the labelling and insults. As a wise man once said, he who resorts to insults has run out of arguments. I don’t really care if people call me sexist, racist or misogynist; I am confident enough in both my beliefs and my own personal character to know without doubt that it isn’t true. Generally this sort of tactic is used by people unable to justify their opinion with reasoning; it’s nothing more than a distraction from having their own opinions scrutinised
You once again make poor arguments. Hollywood is going broke. As someone who works in property management they are literally liqudating whatever they can because they keep producing products that nobody wants and loosing money. Nobody gives a hoot if someone is gay or lesbian just that the story should not be just about the characters sexual preference. They have forgotten there needs to be a story that everyone can relate to. Every recent film is the last few year stars a female lead who is has super powers or is just swap for what should have been a male character. We have Hollywood telling us that Cleopatra was black when she was not. It even created riots in Cairo. In Star Wars we have Rey who was the super Jedi without going through a hero’s journey she just showed up one day and could defeat any Sith Lord with zero background.
The Video Game Industry is starting to go under because we have game companies changing player selected options to make the character gay or lesbian to fit the narative they want. They have made female video game characters literally look like men. And they are going broke.
In the comic book world there are entire stories that no longer focus on the character but the sexuality of the character or race of the character and have forgotten all the super hero stuff and those companies are going broke and many comic book stores have replace shelves of Marvel with shelves of Manga because people are tired of the BS. Authors for US comics are self inserting themselves in the comics instead of telling the story.
In the media world the game sites are closing down, the game critics are being replaced with AI because people are tired of the “woke” agenda.
The Japanese have stopped allowing US activist from changing the story and the words of the original source material that was being replaced with woke agenda items versus doing and honest translation.
What is so tiresome is you and many like you calling everyone “xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny” your words withone a single iota of evidence that someone is what you claim to be while at the same time not acknowledging what has been happening and many people rejecting what is happening and causing those companies to literally close their doors. I returned this weekend from a trip to help a client liquidate an entire warehouse of “Woke” material of comic books, toys, books and other items not nobody wants to buy and need to disposed of for environmental reasons.
People are fed up of being called names of which they are not and media that is more about the agenda over the story. Go ahead, call me names because that is all you have and inside it will make you feel better. I both understand and do not care. BUT, do not deny what has taken us to where we are. The film was terrible and it will loose money and it was all done so that Newline Cinema did not loose their license for the IP.
As I stated, it had moment where it was good, for example the sword play between Hera and another character as it was acurate and it also had Hera implied to be a lesbian and having a lesbian lover and why she did not want to be married — because Hollywood cannot stop themselves. It absolutely could have been a good film, but it did not belong in the theaters and there are some very stupid plot line and gaps in the film. In the end, She was the Hero. An unnamed character in the lore became the hero over Helm. That is why it was terrible not because they wanted a women is that Hera did not fit the lore and if you follow the story you cannot even understand how she could have been the Hero in the end because it did not fit.
If you are going argue, at least be balance give facts. In the meantime all your name calling is destroying various entertainment industries because that is what you get when you support and agenda vs giving a relatable story.
@turbocooler Yes vey true. I ‘woke’ to this ugly situation with the comic industry. These people have slowly overtaken the comic book industry and inserted their post-modernistic ideology into every story line. It has gotten so bad that DC and Marvel cannot stand on their on feet without financially. They are held up by their parent companies just for the IPs. In the 80’s, if a comic sold less than 100,000 copies, it was retired. Today, if Marvel sell 10,000 copies it is considered a success. None of their comics are in the top ten lists, except maybe for Batman and X-men. It is really bad. Scores of popular characters have been race-swapped or gender-swapped for no reason but to peddle ideology and because they are too lazy to create their own characters – so they hijack established popular characters in order to promote their views.
For example take the Ms Marvel comic. It never made any money. It was rebooted six times until they gave up and inserted the character everywhere else. The creator, Sana Amanat was quoted on video as saying that she did not care about profitability or what the fanbase wanted. She said it was her job to give us what we needed to read rather than what we wanted to read. Ten years later Marvel is a shadow of what it use to be.
I was once told that these ‘woke’ writers replace character with identity, and story with agenda – all for modern audiences (whatever that means?). My bad experience as an ex-collector has left me distraught with the industry. The industry is dying before our eyes and these people at Marvel do not care at all.
Take care turbocooler. You are not any of the stuff people are calling you.
Nope, I am not misogynistic you put your own agenda on my words I was using “Mary Sue” correctly. A Mary Sue is a common type of Literary Archetype, usually a young woman, who is portrayed as unrealistically free of weaknesses or character flaws. In the film the character as if she was a military leader and could defeat all men with zero experience on her part. That is the objection. I am not bothered by strong female characters I want them to go through the hero’s journey not just show up and apparently be better and stronger than any male character without and prior experience. So, you put your own spin but I used the term correctly having actually watched the film.
It’s a film made solely to retain the rights to the property. Nothing more, nothing less. Yes, sure, it rewrites lore for no reason other than to insert a “strong woman” into the story. But ultimately, Warner had to make a film or lose the rights. So they put together a film with a $30m budget of which At present, after its opening weekend, it’s earned $10m back. These numbers may seem huge to you or I but to Warner it’s an amount they would easily tolerate losing rather than lose the rights and associated revenue from licensing them. Within that context, they can gamble on pandering to the ideals of the writers, as long as they publish something, anything, this year (2024), which they have
@onlyonepinman
The fascinating thing I learnt today, if Wikipedia is to trusted, is that Tolkien Estate sued ‘Middle Earth Enterprises’ in 2012 over some casino/video use of Tolkien’s characters citing that this action had lead to “irreparable harm to Tolkien’s legacy”; they settled out of court.
Ironically, 2012 is when the Hobbit trilogy began.
The more I read about the matter though, the less sympathy I have with ‘Tolkien Estates’. Professor Tolkien was no fool, he must have had some inkling what Hollywood was capable of yet *he*, I believe, sold the rights to his book. “He who sups with the devil..” and all that.
I don’t really have sympathy for any particular party involved. I just understand why things are happening. I do not currently have, nor is it likely I ever will have, any burning desire for more Middle Earth content (what an awful word). The Lord of the rings films were about as close to perfect as you are ever likely to get and it is a feat unlikely to ever be replicated (look at the history if how they were made, I genuinely don’t think that could be done again, certainly not now). I don’t really think any of the rest of Tolkien’d works are particularly ripe for conversion to film. But warner will not want to lose any licensing rights they currently have, nor do I think they want to see Amazon snap up the rest of the rights and essentially overshadow (in terms of awareness at least) the Peter Jackson films. So every 10 years or so, we should expect Warner to vomit up a low rent offering to satisfy the licensing terms but otherwise do very little else
Isn’t it mostly Japanese? Current Western politics usually don’t appear in those from my experience.
No, it was animated by a Japanese team, but the story and screenplay are primarily by Phillipa Boyens, Phoebe Gittins, Jeff Addiss and Will Matthews. Boyens was previously involved with Jackson on LotR, Hobbit and King Kong,not sure about the others. But the interviews with Boyens and Gittins do seem to suggest typical modern Holywood tactic of inserting female characters where none previously existed and then making those characters ubermensch. Here’s an excerpt from an interview:
“We know Helm has a daughter, and we know that she was central to the conflict that happened. But myself, and especially screenwriter Phoebe Gittins, were drawn to her. We could feel the weight of being that unnamed daughter, which immediately piqued our interest: Who was she? How did she live?”
Herà was not central to the conflict, if she were, Tolkien would have named her and explained her role in it. As it stands she is listed as an unnamed daughter. So whether you like the change to the lore or not, it’s hard to deny that it has been changed and that it was done so solely for the reason of having a female led film.
Wouldn’t mind that if it wasn’t an obvious cash grab. Not everything should be a franchise imo but we do live in capitalism
I don’t think it is a cash grab as such. It’s not necessarily being made to generate income in and of itself, rather to maintain a source of income from existing licensing deals. I am fairly sure Warner will be fine if this does nothing more than break even, or even if it makes a small loss. I mean, I sort of agree about the whole Franchise thing. The Peter Jackson films were great, the Hobbit were OK but had a few problems, nowhere near as good as the LotR films but still passable. But I don’t feel like I need more “Middle Earth” films when the ones already made tell a full and complete story, no prequel/sequel required.
Actually, since director is Japanese (the most indirect people on earth) and given the whole moral of the story was “pride goes before a fall” repeatedly since it was the mistake the 3 most prominent characters (Hera, her Dad Helm, the Villain Wulf) kept making, I do not think it was Hollywood’s standard “agenda” of “make women men and vice versa” though I am sure the American voice acting coach tried make it appear that way.
Frankly I got the feeling Hera was made out to be the “that fool whose downfall you are about watch” from the start since it mentions there are no songs of her (likely cause her bard bro died lol), she loses everyone dear to her except her nursemaid and a half cousin, its pretty clear she could have prevented most of that loss simply by swallowing her pride and marrying Wulf in the first place (who by the way saved her from getting killed by his Dad back when they were kids after she sliced his eye out, she made him the villain he is), its heavily suggested the main family bloodline ends with her, and her reason for not marrying (wanting to restart the Shield Maidens) is symbolically the same as one of main well recognized reasons Japan has a declining birthrates (women putting careers first before having kids). I.e. Hera’s character knowingly points out everything wrong with the modern action girl archetype and what she normally represents in Hollywood (toxic feminism) and ac.
Also, no the plot is actually in keeping with Tolkien’s lore (in fact its actually a flushed out version of a in universe historical event mentioned in the books). Heck even Hera and the other actions and cultural outlook are in keeping with Tolkien’s version of riders of Rohan (very Viking/Germanic/Celtic outlook).
Nah, the main reason its “not good” box office wise is cause its a tragic story about the preventable death of dynasty and honestly there are too many action girls in film right now regardless of the messaging (sort of like sparkly vampires and zombies). If this had come out in the late 2000 it would probably be remembered fondly and the, and I feel it may go that way still with time but it will take some time.
The OTT team spend hours creating a 90 minute plus ‘Weekender’ show that gets 16 or so comments
Brennon uploads a few pictures and a few paragraphs about ‘Hera’ and the Lord of the Rings film and gets 21 plus comments.
Just saying …
I think the weekender gets more comments when there is a prize up for grabs.
Middle Earth and/or GW as topic always provokes an opinion and when it’s both…
Agreed. So much negativity here 🙁
I haven’t seen the film yet as it’s only just come out this weekend – but credit to GW – they always do really great Lord of the Rings miniatures when based off the source material (in this case the film) that they have the rights to. Personally, I think these are 2 lovely looking miniatures, and beautifully painted. I am sure that they must therefore be very faithful to the characters representation in the film.
@holly agreed! GW’s LOTR range is almost always a standout. I can think of very few examples that were misses.
They are faithful to the imagery from the film. But the film is probably part of the problem, it’s way too far “off piste”. It strays too far from the visual styles of the Peter Jackson films and into modern fantasy/anime styling. GW are only making what the film provided, but it doesn’t change the fact it’s horrible.
Why the negativity? MESBG fans don’t get too much by way of new stuff and when they do, this is what they get. The Peter Jackson films were beautifully imagined, to be reduced to this is some fall. There were definitely better versions of her they could have done
Don’t get me wrong, I really want like it, but it’s just doesn’t feel like Middle Earth
There’s masses that’s been previewed and is currently available that is just awesome – Burdhur and the Hill Trolls for example. The Shadow Of Rhudaur, Fraecht, Vassal Of The Witch-king – lovely sculpts, and with the promise of more to come.
I wouldn’t say “masses”. There has been a reasonable amount of new stuff, I wouldn’t say “masses”. We are going through a spell of renewed interest owing to a new film, it is highly unlikely to last more than a couple of months. Also worth pointing out the film is not looking like it’s heading towards success, so that will further limit the promise of “more to come”. Support for MESBG will die along with interest in War of the Rohirrim.
So really, unlike warhammer, when there’s a swing and a miss, that’s kind of it. There’s no second chance next month.
I would also point out, the new characters for Rohan weren’t great either. Nor was the first Hera miniature shown off, although this is certainly the worst of the bunch. The others at least looked vaguely Rohanesque. While Fraecht was ok, Aldrac and the warriors of Carn Dun were truly awful miniatures, looking far too much like an Age of Sigmar Dark Oath barbarians than something from Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth
For what it’s worth, I actually wonder if this film and the miniatures GW are producing (and in all likelihood have to produce given that they probably can’t redesign the film designs), could be the death knell for the game system. If these don’t sell – and I suspect based on the reaction this one really will struggle – how keen will GW be to maintain a license for a film franchise whose “peak” was 20 years ago and that has nothing but token lip service every 10 years to look forward to in terms of new media. I genuinely think this could be start of end
Well, the 100th anniversary of the actual Hobbit book is a mere 13 years away, shockingly. I have a reprint of the original text version, which was changed after Lord of the Rings, to make the story about the ring finding bit mesh better. Some people love the work, some don’t.
Warner are contractually obliged to produce another film before then. It would seem that arohnd 10 years is probably the specific time frame for reversion back to the Tolkien Estate. The Hobbit was released 9 years after The Return of the King, War of the Rohirrim 10 years after Battle of the Five Armies. So we should see another film around about 2034.
Honestly I thought MESBG was dead 10 years ago. Community is really carrying the heavy load here.
I suspect over the next 10 years it will dwindle further and become unviable for GW. Especially without new films to keep majntain general public awareness of the franchise. Mind you, 10 years from now, maybe they will “reboot” Lord of the Rings. Won’t that be exciting.
With regard to MESBG, for me, the games ‘died’ when they released ‘The Hobbit’ book. The ‘rules bloat’ and that point, for me, became ridiculous. I think the ‘different weapons’ was the tipping point.
I’ve just looked online and they are describing the rulebook as 176 pages long. Given the price of £34 is that ‘176 pages’ supposed to be a selling point?
Obviously they’ve now included an index as a ‘selling point’. But to play the game you need to buy the Army Books, at £40 a throw (£22 or so for ebook). I guess you don’t have to buy all of them. Even so, £74 just for rules!!!
Finally, the advertising talks about the number of profiles as if that is a selling point. I counted roughly 120 for the Hobbit book alone.
Too much, way too much. Don’t they realise that ‘less is sometimes more’?
I’ve a drawer full of unopened GW ME stuff – mainly lead. From the day when I was an avid ‘War of the Ring’ player. I even bought a ticket for the first (and only) ‘War of the Ring’ GT.
I reckon I better get this stuff on ebay ASAP before it is too late.
Taking a quote from Tolkien…
“I would draw some of the great tales in fullness, and leave many only placed in the scheme and sketched. The cycles should be linked to a majestic whole, and yet leave scope for other minds and hands, wielding paint and music and drama.”
In isolation yes and there is nuance in his quote when you consider more of his writing and Christopher’s but maybe bear this in mind.
I will say, again, that adaptation does not harm the original. The original books are still there. They aren’t going anywhere. War Of The Rohirrim is not going to “ruin” Middle-earth. What will it do? Possibly bring in more fans who are excited by the movie and want to know more. Guess what they do then? They read more books, watch more movies, generate more interest in Middle-earth and they dive deeper into Tolkien’s work and discover it for themselves.
Are there agenda behind the creation of some media? Yes. Did Warner Bros create War Of The Rohirrim to fill some obligation? Maybe. Does that take away from the creative endeavours of those involved? Not in my books. I don’t think that anything was done in such a nefarious way to “force” anything down anyone’s throats.
Having watched the movie, I really liked Hera’s character. I think they did a really good job of slotting her into the story alongside her brothers and Helm. Freca trying to get Helm’s daughter to marry Wulf was one of the tinder box moments of Helm’s story and so it makes sense to do something more with her and not just have her as some background character. Plus, the arc that she has with her retainer and the Shieldmaiden theme in general feeds nicely into Jackson’s version of Eowyn and how she sees herself in his films.
I think a lot of people are getting all tied up in knots about something that doesn’t need to be this complicated. By the gods, it’s an animated film in Middle-earth about a cool story in the appendix. It’s not world-changing, earth-shattering cinema. It’s just a bit of fun and heck, if it gets more people interested in Middle-earth then awesome – bring it on.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I’m a massive fan of Middle-earth and love Tolkien’s work but my favourite version of The Lord Of The Rings is the BBC Radio Play! Heck, that changes a whole lot of stuff and I still love it!
Let’s relax people…
…and if you don’t like the miniature. Don’t buy it. It’s an old meme sir but it still checks out. Don’t yuck other people’s yum. I think she looks cool, especially with the cloak. Also, you can find plenty of other awesome Shieldmaiden miniatures from the likes of Medbury and Footsore that fit the classic Anglo-Saxon aesthetic so just go there.
Having had the new miniatures in my hands, they all work really nicely next to the more recent plastics from GW for MESBG. The older plastics are showing their age for sure and there’s a bit of scale creep but nothing drastic that would look odd.
Whilst it is absolutely fair to say “if you don’t like it don’t buy it”it is equally fair to say “if you don’t want people’s opinions on something, don’t invite them” or “don’t ask questions you don’t want to hear the answers to”.
The issue here, with this miniature is not whether there is some issue with political messaging behind her inclusion in the film. That has been discussed here within the context of the movie, and it’s a fair discussion but perhaps not necessarily relevant here. But what is absolutely relevant is the design of Herà and the quite radical departure from the wider design language of Rohan. I would say that absolutely IS a fair criticism of the artistic and creative endeavour behind the movie, and it is not in any way mitigated by the fact that I could find a proxy elsewhere. The miniature is presented within the context of Middle Earth and specifically Peter Jackson’s imagining of it and as a piece of design, accompanied by a question: “What do you think if this version of Herà”. Whether it New Line or Games Workshop who are responsible, it falls massively short of expectation and people have made that fairly clear, no?
Is it a good “generic fantasy miniature”? Maybe, I guess, if you like that sort of thing.
Is it a good likeness of the film Character? Yeah, based on images I managed to find, it’s certainly not the worst likeness in the MESBG range.
Is it a a good Middle Earth Miniature? No. Absolutely not and I would say objectively so. Anf I think fans of Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth, whether on the screen, tabletop or both, are fully entitled to express that frustration or disappointment and should be free to do so absent any accusations of negativity or worse, bigotry.
I already found a great proxy for her.
https://www.wargamesillustrated.net/product/lord-flash-revisited/
I’m perfectly fine with people discussing whether or not they like the miniature but when people start discussing “political messaging” and deeper meaning as to why x or y has been done, it invariably ends up turning into an entirely different discussion.
As I mentioned above, did Warner Bros make the film to make sure they could keep the property? Yes, they’ve said as much. So that’s valid and explains some of the shortcomings I have with the film despite enjoying it.
As for any kind of messaging, Film-makers put themselves into projects. Regardless of what it is. The team behind War Of The Rohirrim obviously thought that this would be an interesting story to tell and they had room to do more with what Tolkien had written on the subject. Again, as I mentioned above, it makes sense to flesh out Helm’s daughter’s story considering her marriage to Wulf was one of the moments that sparked off the clash between the two sides. Will that make War Of The Rohirrim a good/bad film, well that’s up to the individual.
So, in my opinion, the inclusion of Hera and telling her story doesn’t matter a dot. It felt (to me) like a Tolkienesque story with the elements of tragedy and heroism that you’ve come to expect from his work. Where the negatives of my review of the film come in to pacing and editing.
We can discuss whether or not the film is bad/good but I think conflating it with perceived agendas by creatives who probably just wanted to tell a good story makes a mountain out of a molehill. Is the mainstream media becoming more inclusive? Yes. That’s a good thing. But I don’t think inclusivity politics have as much of an input on why x or y is done as people think. Why was Hera added to this story? As Boyens said, because it makes sense to include her. You can’t just tell Helm’s story without going into his family dynamics and the relationships with his kin.
There is obviously a question of “why tell the story at all then?” – well, we’ve discussed that above, and so when asked to make it, they do what they think is best. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it DOES NOT detract from the world of Tolkien that currently exists in books or films. It simply adds to it, and as with all media, you can either embrace it or ignore it.
I think I diagree with almost everything you have suggested here. The ONLY bit we agree on is that when people talk about political messaging in the film it becomes a different discussion and while we agree on that, I think when a miniature is based on a character in a film, it’s very difficult to talk about the miniature without talking about the film.
– Film makers insert hemselves into their works…
No they don’t. Good ones don’t, bad ones do. Ridley Scott doesn’t self insert. Steven Spielberg doesn’t self insert. Francis Ford Coppola, Jerry Bruckheimer, Denis Villeneuve don’t self insert. Peter Jackson was even on record stating the exact opposite of Lord of the Rings, that they deliberately didn’t insert any of their own messaging into the film.
– The inclusion of Herà “just made sense”, according to Phillipa Boyens…
It doesn’t make sense of you have to make major deviations from the source material you are adapting. They WANTED to tell a story about a women, it didn’t “make sense” to do so. It’s also highly debatable whether it makes an interesting story – the reviews certainly don’t play out like that. Even the Guardian, who an usually can be relied upon to tow the line, have panned it.
– It doesn’t detract from the existing books and films…
True, but it does essentially set the future direction of the franchise which will likely have an adverse effect on the tabletop game. If new models in the future are based on films that viewers dislike, the game will suffer and thus the likelihood of new models in the future will be reduced. This model in isolation is not the harbinger of doom, but it is symbolic of the poor state of the property at the moment. Furthermore, when a franchise takes a turn in a direction that fans don’t like, of course they are allowed to say so. Whilst the original films still exist, if the new films are unpopular, the people who don’t like them are also likely leave the associated tabletop community also as there will be nothing there for them any more. I think people are entitled to feel aggrieved by that.
– We can discuss whether a film is good or bad without talking about any perceived agenda…
Not if the perceived agenda is the reason the film is bad. And the agenda isn’t perceived, film makers are pretty overt about it and many highly influential people hold sway over major Hollywood studios. So it does have a significant influence.
– You can’t tell the story of Helm Hammerhand without going into his family dynamics…
Maybe, but you absolutely can tell that story without inventing a character and placing her front and centre as the MAIN character.
I think ALL of the above discussion points are fair, valid and relevant to discussions about the state of the franchise and the direction it is potentially going, potentially epitomised by this miniature.
Is this not really just the same old debate though? If someone dislikes something, are they entitled to dislike it openly and if so on what grounds is it and is it not acceptable to dislike it? We have been here before (almost always with GW) and we shall undoubtedly be here again. Because like almost everything these days, there are two conflicting opinions and ne’er the twain shall meet. There are the people who wish to express opinions, regardless of whether they are positive and negative, and there are people who wish only to see people leaving positive opinions (i.e. do not yuk other people’s yum). It is unfortunately only possible to appease one of those two positions and so arguments like this will continue to occur. I make no secret of which camp I am in – yes, we should be allowed to yuk other people’s yums. In fact doing so is an essential part of societal discourse.
@onlyonepinman Very well put. I agree with everything you just said and could not have said it better myself.
Just to add some wood to the fire, the film is bombing at the box office everywhere. The latest figures show that it cost 30 million to make with an added 20 million in advertising.
It only made 5.5 mil domestically (in the US) and 5.4 mil worldwide. This is disastrous for the franchise and for the hobby. Compare it to another animated move Demon Slayer – an anime I have never heard of unlike Tolkien – it made 50 mil domestically and went on to make 437 mil worldwide.
Also, I do not know if you have seen the movie or not? I did not hate the movie, but unfortunately, and I say this with a heavy heart, it does feel rushed. The writing is not very good and does not fell very Tolkienesque, but rather cliched and hackneyed.
The animation as visuals are good, but it is very choppy and uneven at times. It is like they used different frame rates for different parts of the movie.
The movie is also too long for the story it is trying to tell, and with better writing you could have easily shaved off 30mins. All the (and I mean all) characters are underdeveloped and have no real story arc showing growth or change. Helm’s daughter and Wulf suffer from this the most.
Regrettably, there is very heavy feminist undertones in the writing, and while Helm’s daughter has girl boss and a mary-sue elements, she does not come off as insufferable or unlikable – which I am grateful for. (Another reason why I say the writing is not very Tolkienesque). I knew beforehand this would be the case, because this movie started production in 2021 when the D.E.I. movement still held Hollywood by the balls. Only now is the pendulum starting to swing the other way.
As you touched upon, this story should have revolved around Helm and not his daughter, and I think this – as well as the other things I have mentioned – have all added up and led to this movie’s bad showing. It is a pity.
Let’s hope New Line Cinema and Warner Bros. learn from this failure and in the future make movie adaptations that are more in line with the story, and what people actually want to see.
A very sad situation, and one that was totally avoidable. They had the material, they had the characters, they had the talent and above all else they had the fan base – but they sowed the seeds of their own failure.
And to add one last thing, most of the reviewers and critics agree with what I have said. There are a few who liked it, mostly people who also play MEBSG funnily enough, as well as our own @brennon here (and I am happy for him).
For my part I don’t hate the film, but I can’t help but feel disappointed. In my humble opinion it is another missed opportunity to have made something better.
I haven’t and probably won’t watch it. It’s just another prequel/sequel nobody really wanted for, rushed into production to save the rights. So I won’t be bothering, I may watch it in future if it’s on streaming. If people want to watch it, if people ENJOY it, fine. But I don’t think that invalidates the reasons why people dislike it.
I don’t really see New Line doing anything with the license except taking royalties from licensed merchandise. I suspect there is even a degree of protectionism behind it as well, to prevent Amazon getting full rights to the story, which would not only cut off any royalties they may be receiving but also put sales of DVD and streaming rights to the Peter Jackson trilogies at risk by reducing commercial interest in them.
So here’s my ‘pennyworth’ with regard to middle-earth wargaming and GW.
Is there enough to this film to warrant the direction GW is taking with MESBG?
I suppose I had better be more precise. GW recently culled a large number of, in fairness, old miniatures that were part of the LoTR line. They’ve produced some absolutely stunning new figures. The figures appear to be ‘true’ to characters in the film – which we may or may not like.
I just get this uneasy feeling that the film is dragging GW down a cul-de-sac with regard to MESBG. (Rohan vs Dunlendings? It’s not enough to get me back interested in painting and playing. And I have 100’s of figures.) The fact that GW released ‘Rise of Angmar’, IIRC, and then made it out of date before it had barely hit the shelves makes me think that GW don’t have anything like the involvement they had with Jackson and NewLine in the 00’s.
It would be nice if they did some new Dunlendlings. The Hill Tribes are ok, but they’re a bit of a rabble. I remember the old viking themed Men of Dunland, I hope this film doesn’t mean they’re no longer allowed to make them anymore
Absolutely all of this! Especially don’t yuck someone else’s yum – always loved that phrase 🙂
There’s something else I want to say here, because there’s quite a lot of complainys being made about negativity and criticism being levelled at people who are perceived to hold that negative opinion. Some of that criticism is now coming from a member of the OTT team. This is not an attempt at trying to silence @brennon, far from it I want him to continue express his opinions and enthusiasm for all things tabletop. OTT is a wonderful place with him in the team. But the optics of stepping in the way he did? They don’t look good. Some of it was quite condescending – something that doesn’t seem like a big deal to you, may be a big deal to someone else. So I want people to consider this.
Differences of opinion are not just fine, they are necessary. People here have the right to express a view, positive or negative, about the miniature or the film – it’s impossible to really separate the two. But if people dislike the direction this discussion took, then they should look not at the negative comments, but at the response to the negative comments. None of the people who have expressed a like of either the film or the miniature have had really had their reasons for liking the film or the miniature questioned nor have they as people been insulted for holding those opinions, or told they should NOT like it, or should not openly say they like it. Can we honestly say the reverse is true? Those who have been open about their dislike of the miniature, the movie and/or modern films in general have had thinly veiled accusations of bigotry and gate keeping levelled at them, all because they have an opinion someone else disagrees with.
When someone expresses dislike of something you like, there are a number of ways to respond the absolute worst of which is to insult or criticise, whether directly or passively, the person holding the opinion rather than the opinion itself. If you don’t want a discussion at all, you could ignore it. If you feel the need to speak out, you can offer objective counter arguments as to why the opinion is not valid. Or you can offer a subjective response along the lines of “well, I like it anyway”, which is absolutely fine and, here on OTT at least, is almost ALWAYS accepted. But as soon as you target the person not the opinion, you immediately put people on the defensive, you make them feel the need to respond which is exactly what has happened here.
Communities can survive differing opinions and, if people are mature about it, can thrive not despite those opinions but as a result of them. But if instead we pass judgment on people who opinions different to ours, insult them or label them as problematic, we divide the community rather than the opinion.
You are welcome to your opinion. I am welcome to mine. You are entitled to disagree with me and even challenge my opinion if you wish. But without understanding the reasons why I hold those opinions, you should think twice before you assign derogatory labels to me.
It’s nice to see OTT testing the waters of 3.0 by mimicking Reddit this month.
Been a member of this community for nigh on 15 years now. Believe it or not, this happens from time to time. It’s not the first and it won’t be the last