Bag End Hobbit Hole

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Bagshot row 1 (the correct #1) and 2 have no been done yet right? Only number 3 (labelled #1) is there if I'm correct. So it would be nice if 1 and 2 would be there as well, fitting to 3.

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by FrodoEyes View Post
      I'm confused too... do you mean Sams home and the one next door done together? We have them done separately already right? I wish this was done in the first place as I'm going to have to double up on HoHo's now if that's the case
      I am pretty sure this is what Leonard is talking about, doing the Gamgee's smial with that of Daddy Twofoots.

      No FrodoEyes, we only have the Gamgee's smail at present.



      Originally posted by Leonard View Post
      In the discussions we've had regarding a BEHoho (and we've done them from the beginning!) We always thought we would do it bigger than the standard base (* like #1 is on. I mean 3 BSR, apologies. By 3 I mean 1. Not 4. But 1. What we had made 1. Which be 3. In they mercy). Which likely put us in GD base territory - buuut, yup, we would like it to rise up above the others, which may just mean M&B size base.

      & speaking of #1 (refer * above) - what if in order to do #2, we combined it with 1 (see*) on a #23 size base? Added a bit more detail etc along the way too.

      I'm listening
      My biggest problem when I read this, the first many times, is #1, to me, is the blue door Leonard was knocking on a long while back, I still have that picture.
      When Weta released the first Hobbit hole back on July 26, 2013 they called it 1 Bagshot Row. After much debate it was 'proven' that their #1 Bagshot Row (Gamgee's smial) was truly 3 Bagshot row.
      - "standard base (* like #1 is on" is stating the base for the Gamgee's smial
      - Hence the "#1 is on. I mean 3 BSR, apologies." is going back to those discussions, as this discussion was held on the old Shadow and Flame forum, I can't link it.
      - "By 3 I mean 1." Again referring to the problems some of us had discussing the first hobbit hole Weta/Leonard and Daniel created. Some of us still don't refer to it by any number, but by that of "the Gamgee's or Sam's smial" for this reason. Me included.
      - "Not 4. But 1." Thrown in to confuse us, and nothing more? I can't see that happening. Yet there is no #4 Bagshot Row. That Leonard now has 4 children not one and is truly going in sane is always a possibility. Or is he talking about the fourth one he and Dave created, well that would be #36. So the base not of the fourth one made, #36, but of the first one made, the Gamgee's smial, would be quite possible.
      - "What we had made 1. Which be 3." They had made 3 BSR into 1 BSR by calling it such, but which it is truly still 3 BSR. Again referring to the error of labeling the first hobbit hole that was made.
      - "In they mercy", forgiveness and understanding of how the mistake was made, was given a long time ago.

      So reading it with out all of Leonard's 'guilt ridden' insanity:

      In the discussions we've (Leonard and Dave) had regarding a BEHoho. We always thought we would do it bigger than the standard base . Which likely put us in GD (Green Dragon) base territory - buuut, yup, we would like it to rise up above the others, which may just mean M&B (Mill and Bridge) size base.


      - & speaking of #1 (Gamgee's smial) - what if in order to do #2 (Daddy Twofoots smial, #2 BSR which is connected to the Gamgee's smial), we combined it with 1 (Gamgee's smial) on a #23 size base (what Leonard forgets is #23 is the only hobbit hole to date that does not have a number assigned to it)? Added a bit more detail etc along the way too.


      Here is a screen shot from the end of LotR: RotK of #2 Bagshot Row, red door, with #3 Bagshot Row (or is that #1?) which ever it is the Gamgee's smial:


      Here is #1 BSR, or is that #3 BSR, well which ever it is the Gamgee's smial, and the one Leonard happens to be discussing at present.


      Now do we want to leave this the Gamgee's hobbit hole alone and have the red door #2 BSR done the same way or would we rather have Leonard and Dave make #2 BSR and the Gamgee's hobbit hole together like Weta did #19/20 on the same size base as #23, the Great Garden Smial base?
      19/20


      I see yet another poll coming.
      Where is polylord at times like this?

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by Minuialwen View Post
        I see yet another poll coming.
        Where is polylord at times like this?
        I'm here! I don't know anything about smials though

        Comment


          #44
          Well of course, it should be two in one!

          Comment


            #45

            Originally posted by polylord View Post

            I'm here! I don't know anything about smials though
            polylord is that really YOU? So wonderful to see that you have not forgotten about us all.

            I hope you and your family are doing well in this time of 'uncertainty'.



            Polylord, is not the hobbit holes I was referring about

            Originally posted by Minuialwen View Post


            I see yet another poll coming.
            Where is polylord at times like this?
            But creating a poll, as I know how much you used to love seeing polls on the forum.

            Comment


              #46
              I’m all for a mixture of the small base Smials, and the larger ones - Gardern Smial size, and larger again Green Dragon size.

              Im happy for 1 and 2 BSR (2 & 3??) to be combined on a larger base - if it looks good together. Doubt it will fit with the current #1 BSR though.

              If Mill and Bridge are on a GD size base, and maybe BE is on the same base, then I’m not sure well see anything in the HoHo range being on that size base (happy to be corrected!)

              There are definitely some other unique Smials that can go on the standard size base (would love to see another of the lakeside ones).

              As far as the smaller base with “accessory” (love these), I’d have to double check Min’s Hobbiton registry...

              I love these and will keep collecting them - not really collecting anything else at the moment.

              Scriff

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by Scriff View Post

                If Mill and Bridge are on a GD size base, and maybe BE is on the same base, then I’m not sure well see anything in the HoHo range being on that size base (happy to be corrected!)

                Scriff
                Leonard stated that the Mill and Bridge base is 32 x 18 cm while according to Weta the Green Dragon's base is 22.5 x 10 cm.

                Reason why Leonard was wondering if 'they' should go with the GD base or the MaB base.

                The Mill and Bridge base is the same size as the Bag End base that is out now.

                Comment


                  #48
                  Yea of little faith questioning my sanity! Why yeeees! Is it not better to enjoy your insanity than suffer from it?

                  My rant, why I was but simply, referring to that historical tome, as written in the pictures that move, by the Pythons Monty. That two plus 3 should give us the 5, which, as below, is right out. Apart of course from the 5 at Hill Lane, which is in (the ground).
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

                  And Scriff, the base of the M&B is quite a bit larger than the GD. And don't forget the base of #13, which is, in size, between the one below it and the one above it.

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Me being me and 'fighting' to get a new Gamgee hobbit hole attached to Daddy Proudfoot's hobbit hole, #2 BSR and #3 BSR attached, it was all that I 'saw' in Leonard's post. Getting that post written, and rereading Leonard's post he is asking for other info from FoU members as well ...

                    So reading it with out all of Leonard's 'guilt ridden' insanity:
                    "In the discussions we've (Leonard and Dave) had regarding a BEHoho. We always thought we would do it bigger than the standard base . Which likely put us in GD (Green Dragon) base territory - buuut, yup, we would like it to rise up above the others, which may just mean M&B (Mill and Bridge) size base."

                    "Standard base" = 11.5 x 5 cm (4.5 x 1.96 inches) which includes, Gamgee's hobbit hole, #16, #26, #34, #35, #36 and #40 ($49.00 USD) -- not considered for BE HOHO
                    "Green Dragon base" = 22.5 x 10 cm (9.85 x 3.93 inches) pretty much double that of the standard base ($130 USD)
                    "Mill and Bridge base" = 32 x 18 cm (12 x 7 inches) This is the same sized base as the 'complete' Bag End ($179 USD, this environment was done a long time ago, don't count on this price for either the Mill and Bridge or HOHO BE)

                    So, how much of HoHo Bag End would you like them to do, which will determine sized base it will end up being in?

                    Remember the door size will be the same as all the other hobbit holes, the windows will be the same scale as well.

                    I don't have the best of photoshop skills, but trying my best to make the door handles and the bottom of the doors in the same place, thus figuring the scales would be close to the same, here are two versions I could see Leonard and Dave doing. Both of these are on the Green Dragon sized base.

                    Door about centered


                    Door not centered allowing for the parlour and kitchen to be apart of it:
                    bagendongdbase2b2k14.jpg

                    Something tells me my scale is off and Leonard and Dave would not be able to get so much of Bag End on this size of base. Leonard any clue if this is the amount you went get of Bag End on the Green Dragon base.
                    I'm thinking this is more like the Bridge and Mill base???????

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Why not just go Rivendell base size, capture the entire facade similar to the current Bag End, with removable top where you can look down into a full interior with rooms, furniture, etc. laid out? Is that too much to ask?
                      Last edited by dagriff1; 26th March 2020, 14:52.

                      Comment


                        #51
                        Originally posted by dagriff1 View Post
                        Why not just go Rivendell base size, capture the entire facade similar to the current Bag End, with removable top where you can look down into a full interior with rooms, furniture, etc. laid out? Is that too much to ask?
                        That would be too much for my bank account.

                        Comment


                          #52
                          I'm not sure exactly as to what is being discussed and perhaps I'm truly off with the following but I hope it's not new versions of previously released smials.

                          Bag End would possibly be the only exception, as it is THE smial environment in all of the Shire and a larger version would match better with must about all of the other pieces already released. I just don't want to see a new Sam's smial or new Farmer Maggot's smial, etc...

                          Again, most likely I just misunderstood the flow of conversation.

                          Comment


                            #53
                            Love your posts Min.

                            Comment


                              #54
                              Originally posted by FlyAndFight View Post
                              I'm not sure exactly as to what is being discussed and perhaps I'm truly off with the following but I hope it's not new versions of previously released smials.

                              Bag End would possibly be the only exception, as it is THE smial environment in all of the Shire and a larger version would match better with must about all of the other pieces already released. I just don't want to see a new Sam's smial or new Farmer Maggot's smial, etc...

                              Again, most likely I just misunderstood the flow of conversation.
                              In full agreement, word for word, right down to the possibility of misunderstanding what is being discussed

                              I'm all for a HoHo-sized version of Bag End. When you talk about Hobbit homes, that's the first one that jumps into your mind, and the one where both The Hobbit and LoTR practically begin and end. It deserves a bigger, more detailed version.

                              However, I don't get why, with 30 or so other smials left to be made, and at a rate of 2-3 per year, that the Gamgee's home is suddenly up for a do-over. Other than the address error, I don't see anything wrong with it, so why not simply make BSR#2 alone and display them beside each other? Not a fan of redoing things so early, and I'm just not seeing a valid reason other than the aesthetic of having BSR 2 and 3 joined together and the whole address debacle put to rest. However, that means that in order for us to own #2, we have to buy #3 all over again?? Not enough justification for me, plus the prospect of having the old BSR#1 (3) now be an obsolete collectible.

                              I really don't want this setting a precedent for redos. Characters is one thing, but small hobbit holes? Nah.

                              Comment


                                #55
                                I kind of imagined with the larger scale it would cover less width and more height, as Leonard seemed to mention, to rise up above the others, which just might allow the inclusion of the steps/bench/gate... not sure about the tree though!

                                Comment


                                  #56
                                  So I was joking above about a larger base version of bag end with interior, but to be serious I couldn't imagine purchasing or wanting another version which covers less of the ground. My main focus is the environments and the scales are all over the place, and I couldn’t see wanting a bag end in the same scale as the hobbit holes if it greatly compromises encapsulating the full effect of the entire facade and surroundings. I personally don’t see the point as i think the current version, especially the collector’s edition, is pretty perfect. I’d personally prefer new hobbit holes or environments be the focus.

                                  Comment


                                    #57
                                    Originally posted by dagriff1 View Post
                                    So I was joking above about a larger base version of bag end with interior, but to be serious I couldn't imagine purchasing or wanting another version which covers less of the ground. My main focus is the environments and the scales are all over the place, and I couldn’t see wanting a bag end in the same scale as the hobbit holes if it greatly compromises encapsulating the full effect of the entire facade and surroundings. I personally don’t see the point as i think the current version, especially the collector’s edition, is pretty perfect. I’d personally prefer new hobbit holes or environments be the focus.
                                    With this statement I agree with you 100% dagriff!! You nailed my feelings perfectly.

                                    Comment


                                      #58
                                      Originally posted by dagriff1 View Post
                                      So I was joking above about a larger base version of bag end with interior, but to be serious I couldn't imagine purchasing or wanting another version which covers less of the ground. My main focus is the environments and the scales are all over the place, and I couldn’t see wanting a bag end in the same scale as the hobbit holes if it greatly compromises encapsulating the full effect of the entire facade and surroundings. I personally don’t see the point as i think the current version, especially the collector’s edition, is pretty perfect. I’d personally prefer new hobbit holes or environments be the focus.
                                      The current smaller scale version can indeed work with the other HOHO’s if placed behind and above them, for sure. And you get the full environment, as you mentioned.

                                      I think the new version is great for folks who don’t mix scales and like to see the relative size comparison between the various houses, so I can understand the interest, plus there’s much more detail with a larger scale

                                      Comment


                                        #59
                                        Originally posted by Valar View Post

                                        The current smaller scale version can indeed work with the other HOHO’s if placed behind and above them, for sure. And you get the full environment, as you mentioned.

                                        I think the new version is great for folks who don’t mix scales and like to see the relative size comparison between the various houses, so I can understand the interest, plus there’s much more detail with a larger scale
                                        Will they really be able to see the size comparison between the various houses if Bag End is just a portion of it and not the entire hobbit hole?

                                        Comment


                                          #60
                                          I would get a new Bag End HoHo, but I wouldn't display it with my other ones. The Bag End enviro works best with these for my display as I will have it above everything else so it looks like it's in the distance. I would put a new version on its own shelf somewhere, maybe even downstairs away from my collection, have it in the living room with my books.

                                          As far as the Gamgee's Hobbit hole, in reply to Valkrist, I agree I do not want repeat Hobbit holes, but those two particular ones are quite iconic and etched in my memory as one hill with two holes, it's in a lot of shots with the Green Dragon in the background, and they look great together. I would like the path running between them too, though this might put them in 'larger environment' category. If it gets done then great, or I'm willing to wait, or if it's not done at all then fine.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X