Re: Orcrist Revealed

751
[quote=""Buckeye""]

Yes. I have UC's Staff of Gandalf the Grey and Weta's Key to Erebor. The staff is impressive and rather heavy (and makes the LOTR Staff of Gandolf the White look/feel like a fancy broomstick). I'm still trying to decide where to hang it the GtG staff -- I actually wish it was designed to be mounted horizontally. The KtE is a delightfully small collectible that is nicely crafted.

I have the UC Orcrist on preorder and am impatiently counting the days until I have it in hand. I love the quality of the UC swords.[/quote]

That's pretty cool :) I'm considering buying the key to erebor as well. It looks great. I have never really been a big fan of Gandalf's white staff, I always liked his Moria and Pipe staff better that were seen in the Fellowship of the Ring. I love the new design for the Hobbit films as well, and Radagast's staff is my favourite.

I can't wait for Orcrist to come, but according to the retailer who I pre-ordered with, it won't be sent out to me until around about the back end of February :( I suppose thats more time for me to get the money sorted for it though :thumbs_up
"All those moments will be lost, in time... like tears, in the rain..."

Re: Orcrist Revealed

753
[quote=""SmithBlades.com""]The Orcrist may be available much sooner than that! There is some rumor that it'll be shipped to dealers/distributors on the next 10 days![/quote]

Here's hoping the rumor is true! I'm really looking forward to Orcrist. It's a very distinctive looking sword.

Re: Orcrist Revealed

754
[quote=""Buckeye""]Here's hoping the rumor is true! I'm really looking forward to Orcrist. It's a very distinctive looking sword.[/quote]
I didn't check yet but I believe eddy mentioned his beloved Machaera when he started this thread. Orcrist being similar to its design.
Apparently the link he posted is gone.
Last edited by Thranduil on Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"and I have filled him with the Spirit of God, with skill, ability and knowledge in all kinds of crafts- to make artistic designs for work in gold, silver and bronze, to cut stones, to work in wood, and engage in all kinds of craftsmanship"

Re: Orcrist Revealed

756
[quote=""Buckeye""]Is this the blade you are referring to?
http://www.wetanz.com/the-machaera/

If so, it really is unique and I can definitely see the design inspiration for Orcrist. Very nice.[/quote]

Yup, that's the one. A very beautiful piece. I preferred Peter's other handmade sword, but Ed had his heart set on the Machaera. Poor ed, he had to settle for an MSSC Anduril and a trip to NZ to boot. :laugh:
"Remember, the force will be with you, always."

Re: Orcrist Revealed

759
Well, unless the runes were added much later, the implication is that the sword's creation was tied to dragons, which would then mean that the dragon's tooth was there from the beginning. This seems the most likely e xp lanation as they seem to be pretty much ignoring the fact that 'Orcrist' means Goblin-cleaver, not Serpent's Tooth. :huh:
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

760
Paul Tobin's comments about designing the sword in the Weta chronicles book don't specify it as a Dragon's tooth (he says perhaps it was, or some other creature), but his comments do sound as if he was not aware of the issues in stating this was from a dragon. But, he made the handle a tooth specifically for the reason that the Goblin's called it Biter, which was well after the time of Gondolin, so maybe he was aware.

Regardless, the info I was given, written by someone in the production, maybe Paul, states the sword's probable origin, with a brief about Gondolin. Pretty much what Tolkien described, except they specifically name the owner and describe the heraldry on the pommel as his - Ecthelion. Nothing about a Dragon's tooth in the origin text. The impression I got is that was added after, although they don't say one way or the other. It is all on the certificate that comes with the UC sword, including this: "It is unknown if the tooth was acquired prior to the fifth battle of the First Age, or added to the sword with the inscription in the millennia after the Fall of Gondolin, most likely by the Dwarves of the North"

It's out there now, so I suppose there is no harm in posting this:

Hilt Inscription (both sides): Orcrist "Goblin-cleaver".
Blade Inscription (both sides): Nagol e-lyg "The serpent's tooth".
Scabbard Inscription (both sides): Onnen o goew ith·luig "Born from the maws of dragons".
Ui ni madweg a suig "I am always hungry and thirsty".
Last edited by Nasnandos on Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

761
That whirring sound you hear is Tolkien spinning in his grave....

And that ripping sound you hear is me rending my garments....

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

I need to stop reading any and everything about this movie sword that just happens to have the same name as Ecthelion's sword....it gives me heartburn just to think about it.

"Eternity is an awful long time, especially towards the end."

"What you see and what you hear depends a great deal on where you are standing.
It also depends on what sort of person you are.” -- CSL

Re: Orcrist Revealed

762
So, let me see if I have this straight. For the sword's construction, inscriptions, and history to make any kind of sense, and to make it all try to remain within the bounds of Tolkien lore, it would have to go something like this:

- the sword is forged in Gondolin and given to Ecthelion of the Fountain
- the pommel is carved with the heraldic symbol of his House
- using it in the Nirnaeth Arnoediad to defend Turgon's retreat, he gives it the name Orcrist, Goblin-cleaver, and has the name inscribed upon the hilt
- Ecthelion dies during the Fall of Gondolin and Orcrist, along with Glamdring and Sting, is carried eastward, possibly by looters during the sack of the city
- the swords pass out of knowledge for many centuries, but are eventually recovered by dwarves from a dragon hoard in the northern Ered Mithrim
- during the battle to slay the beast, Orcrist's original handle is heavily damaged
- the dwarves replace the handle with one of the slain dragon's teeth, reattach the pommel, and carve 'The Serpent's Tooth' on the blade
- they also fashion a new scabbard for the blade since the original was long lost, and carve words upon it to do with its discovery in the dragon's lair
- the swords are eventually carried south into the War of the Dwarves and Orcs, where it earns the name 'Biter' from the goblins
- the swords are lost once again, carried by many hands, eventually finding their way into a troll cave in Rhudaur
- there they languish for many years before being found by Thorin's company

That about right? Of course, the timing of the runes and the addition of the tooth could have happened at a few different points, but since we'll never know for sure, this is the story that I'm going to use if someone asks me about it. The truly tricky part is e xp laning how Orcrist could have had such a colourful history and been so many places, yet still end up in the same exact place as Glamdring and Sting several millenia later. It is simply too incredible of a coincidence that the swords went their separate ways after the Fall of Gondolin and then just happened to come back together thousands of years later. This would *almost* have to mean that Orcrist was either modified or originally forged and inscribed just the way it is now *before* it left Gondolin, otherwise the other swords were along for the ride. Since I can't see the elves making a sword like that, with a dragon's tooth for a handle, my theory then is the one outlined above: Orcrist had a colourful history and is the way it looks today because of it. :huh:

Of course, none of these wild theories and convoluted e xp lanations would have been needed if Weta had simply decided to be a little more conventional when designing the sword. Instead, they tried to be fancy and went overboard on the 'cool' factor, creating a dilemma for us to e xp lain. :P
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

763
Well, your last paragraph describes modern filmmaking. Sword design, inspired by Michael Bay! It's already good, but could have LOTS of E XP LOSIONS and COLORS and ROBOTS and DRAGON TEETH RAWWRRR!

Enough of my tantrum. Thank you for making this way too complicated, Weta. Ya couldn't have just wrapped it in leather and called it a day. :huh:
"Remember, the force will be with you, always."

Re: Orcrist Revealed

764
Not the exact series of likely events I came up with, but considering the sword has been around for well over 6000 years, I would say it has gone through a lot, and been rehandled numerous times. The only remarkable thing to me is that Orcrist and Glamdring managed to survive for over 6000 years , a fact which came from Tolkien, and that they miraculously stayed together (assuming they were together through this time, which I don't). Of course, he likely did not realize what a huge stretch that was until well after writing The Hobbit, when trying to reconcile it into the legendarium. I'm sure he would have come up with a reason for why those two swords would have come together in the just the right place and right time for Gandalf to discover them, had there been a need to, and it would probably have not been due to chance.

I have no problem with adding some history to the sword like this, but a change like this would have caught Elrond's attention enough for him to point it out when reading the runes. Since he never mentions anything of the sort in the book (or film), it does create an issue.
Last edited by Nasnandos on Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

765
[quote=""Nasnandos""]

I have no problem with adding some history to the sword like this, but a change like this would have caught Elrond's attention enough for him to point it out when reading the runes. Since he never mentions anything of the sort in the book (or film), it does create an issue.[/quote]

Just a thought, perhaps it is Thranduil who could point it out and he becomes angry because the dwarves have defiled a great elven sword and so he then takes it from Thorin and gives it to Legolas.
"All those moments will be lost, in time... like tears, in the rain..."

Re: Orcrist Revealed

766
Possibly, but I doubt there will be any reference to it in the other films. Perhaps there was more in film 1 that Elrond said, that may appear in the extended edition, but I doubt that as well.

Tolkien himself sets up the mystery of what these swords have gone through in the 6400+ history to get to the point where Gandalf and co find them by having Elrond say "one may guess that your trolls had plundered other plunderers", and implying the Dwarves were in possession of Orcrist at one point when he said "I have heard that there are still forgotten treasures of old to be found in the deserted caverns of the mines of Moria, since the dwarf and goblin war". That's a direct suggestion that the Dwarves had it, and Goblins acquired it when they plundered Moria after the Dwarves fled.

An issue about Orcrist that always bugged me since I was a teenager reading Tolkien is that the Goblins recognize Orcrist and Glamdring on sight, yet Thorin does not. They certainly did not recognize two swords used against their ancestors in the time of Gondolin, over 6400 years earlier, so it would have been from a conflict in their lifetimes. As Elrond suggested, the War of the Dwarves and Orcs is really the only recent conflict that the Goblins would have seen Orcrist and Glamdring used enough to actually fear them and give them nicknames. They would have likely been used by two of the more notable Dwarf warriors in that war, yet Thorin, who played a major part in that war, does not recognize either sword. If something were to be added or fleshed out about Orcrist, that's what I would have gone for.
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

768
See, here's the real rub: I would have no problem believing those swords were sitting in that cave for thousands of years as part of some old Gondolin loot. Why? Orcs and trolls are extremely long-lived, possibly even immortal. Tolkien sources, and even Saruman in PJ's movies, state that orcs are descended from elves captured by Morgoth in the days of Cuivienen and Utumno. Similary, trolls are made from the forms of corrupted ents. If not outright immortality as their forebearers possess, orcs and trolls would certainly have an incredibly long lifespan, and there is plenty of suggestion of this in the books. Why then is it so hard to believe that those swords were carried east by plunderers of Gondolin, who likely got only as far as Eriador, and buried them there? I'm not suggesting that Tom, Bert, and William are the original thieves, but it's not impossible. They certainly could have been only the third or even second set of owners. It would certainly help to eliminate the extreme coincidence that those swords would have been allover the map in 6000+ years and somehow managed to stay together. This would also e xp lain why the legend of Beater and Biter has trickled down to present day goblins as they have been around for a long time as well. Lastly, it e xp lains why Thorin would not recognize the swords: they simply played no part in Dwarven history. Similarly, having remained buried all those milennia, they would have escaped even Gandalf's notice, who arrived in Middle-earth in the early Third Age yet was well travelled and knowledgeable enough to have heard or even seen Turgon's and Etchelion's swords in all those centuries.

For all the reasons above, I prefer to imagine that Glamdring and Orcrist lay hidden all those years. Of course, Weta had to go and ruin all that by making this extremely complicated to e xp lain by making some outlandish additions to Orcrist, while Glamdring remains essentially the same, yet they are still found together. So here we are, left trying to piece together a needless mystery that some designer at Weta cooked up just to make the sword look cool and give it some history, where its First Age origins and pedigree would have been more than enough. Honestly, they should have left well alone, because this is one instance where their made up 'history' severely screwed things up and creates too many inconsistencies and questions. :huh:
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

770
Perfectly easy to bash Weta for unnecessary inventions, but the suggestion that the swords were not sitting in that hoard for thousands of years, but were passed from hand to hand, and were once in possession by the Dwarves of the North since the Dwarf and Goblin War, came from Tolkien via Elrond's words. If he did not want us to imagine those possibilities, he would not have had Elrond suggest such things. Gandalf also relates to the dwarves that Elrond's people told him the trolls had come down from the mountains and settled in the woods. This was recently, or recent for Elves anyway. Could have been several months, or even a few years, but not thousands.

As far as the Orc's possibly being immortal, and them naming Beater and Biter being in the time of Gondolin, not likely. You can read that Tolkien (may have) implied in The Coming of the Elves and the Captivity of Melkor that Orcs were somehow bred using Elves, but he also said little is known of certainty in that same paragraph. He threw out numerous ideas for the origins of Orcs over the years, from corrupted Elves, to Men, even Maiar, and even questioning if they could be immortal himself. But he also wrote that they appear to be short lived compared to Men, and e xp lained that Orcs that seemed to live exceptionally long lives were actually Maiar in the form of Orcs, not real Orcs. Some of his last writings on the subject state that Orcs were bred from Men and not immortal. I think that's in Myths Transformed and in Unfinished tales somewhere too. But, none of that is in the official works, and it is never once implied they are immortal or even have long lives. It is not implied they are not immortal either, but Tolkien never appears to have made a real decision. He did write a few Orc captains that lived over 100 years. Azog and Bolg could fall into that line. The Goblin King and Azog each had to be more than 150 years old when they died, based on the years from their first appearances to their deaths. Hardly a long life in Middle-earth though, and a few hundred years makes sense of the Goblins recognizing Beater and Biter from the Dwarf-Orc wars, which puts logic to why Elrond mentioned it.
Last edited by Nasnandos on Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

771
It's easy to bash Weta because they set themselves up for it in this case by mucking with a sword's history and going off on a weird tangent. Maybe I shouldn't be so harsh on them, but I'm not going to make apologies for them either on a decision I strongly disagree with. They don't pay my wages, and I don't have to like every little invention of theirs.

I'm open to a plausible e xp lanation for all this, but they're certainly not making it easy, so I don't see a reason to simply smile and swallow it.

As for what Tolkien said or did not say, I think we can all be in agreement that the whole story changed a hundred times and some elements were never fully settled on. You use that to counter my argument, so I can just as easily suggest that had Tolkien lived longer, he may have changed his mind on what Elrond mentioned about the swords. Middle-earth was a constantly evolving entity to the day of his death, so my theory is just that, a theory, much as I feel this wild ride that Orcrist went on is as well. Gandalf's comments about the trolls coming south means nothing to be honest. So they lived up higher in the Trollshaws or even the Ettenmoors and got a little bolder, packed up their loot, and moved closer to the East-West Road so they could prey on travellers a little more easily. Point is, it doesn't matter where exactly the trolls kept the swords all that time, but whether they had them or not and when. In this case, they likely just moved them from one troll-cave to another on their move south. As for the swords being together all this time, sure... I can buy they were in the possession of the Dwarves during the wars, but it's a giant stroke of coincidence they remained together all that time. Not only that, I think most Dwarves would find Glamdring extremely unwieldy, so why even bother?
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

773
[quote=""Valkrist""] As for what Tolkien said or did not say, I think we can all be in agreement that the whole story changed a hundred times and some elements were never fully settled on. You use that to counter my argument,[/quote]
No, I thought there was a discussion going on. There are lots of useless forums to have mindless Tolkien arguments on, but I don't think this is one.

[quote=""Valkrist""] so I can just as easily suggest that had Tolkien lived longer, he may have changed his mind on what Elrond mentioned about the swords. Middle-earth was a constantly evolving entity to the day of his death, so my theory is just that, a theory, much as I feel this wild ride that Orcrist went on is as well. Gandalf's comments about the trolls coming south means nothing to be honest. So they lived up higher in the Trollshaws or even the Ettenmoors and got a little bolder, packed up their loot, and moved closer to the East-West Road so they could prey on travellers a little more easily. Point is, it doesn't matter where exactly the trolls kept the swords all that time, but whether they had them or not and when. In this case, they likely just moved them from one troll-cave to another on their move south. As for the swords being together all this time, sure... I can buy they were in the possession of the Dwarves during the wars, but it's a giant stroke of coincidence they remained together all that time. Not only that, I think most Dwarves would find Glamdring extremely unwieldy, so why even bother?[/quote]
That would be for Tolkien to e xp lain, since he is the one who wrote Elrond making those suggestions to Gandalf and Thorin. I don't ignore what the man actually wrote, and if you read The Hobbit closely, you can find where Tolkien actually writes of the Great Goblin and his soldiers remembering the Elves of Gondolin hunting their people with Orcrist, as if they were alive at the time.

But, the real reason for those particular inconsistencies, as most of us know, is that Tolkien was not thinking of the legendarium, or even LOTR for that matter, when he wrote the first print draft. He was just writing a book for his children, using some of the mythology of his legends as a back drop. He had plenty of opportunity to change those things in his numerous revisions, but did not. The 6000+ year gap between Gondolin and TH did not actually get created until after or during the writing on LOTR. There are so many little problems like that in The Hobbit, not to mention the narrative itself, he would have needed to entirely rewrite it to make them all work. This one is just a minor one, and this discussion should probably be in the Tolkien section.
Last edited by Nasnandos on Wed Jan 30, 2013 6:39 pm, edited 4 times in total.
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

774
[quote=""Nasnandos""]Sorry, but is that an implication that I like that particular invention, and that Weta pays my wages? I don't and they don't.[/quote]

No, it is no such thing. I was merely stating that since they don't pay me, I am not forced to like them. I was not saying that you are. Insofar as I know, you have your own design studio and work for United Cutlery and do not work for Weta. It was a generalized statement.

As for the invention itself, I know that all you are doing is trying to rationalize it within the framework of Tolkien lore. I think you are more amenable to it than I am, but that doesn't mean you like it. I'm trying to rationalize it as well, I'm just having a more difficult time than you because I've been opposed to Weta's design choice from the start.

At any rate, if any of my comments were taken to be a personal attack, that was certainly not my intent, and I apologize if they were perceived that way.
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

775
[quote=""Nasnandos""]No, I thought there was a discussion going on. There are lots of useless forums to have mindless Tolkien arguments on, but I don't think this is one.[/quote]

Thank you, the distinction is appreciated. :)

Yes, this is a discussion so if I've made an argument out of it, then again I must apologize. Having said that, I think there is such a thing as a friendly argument. You have your point of view on Orcrist, and I have mine. We can both 'argue' our positions, I feel.

You are also absolutely right in saying that there is a huge creative gap between The Hobbit and much of what Tolkien wrote afterward. I simply feel Weta could have been a little more careful when attempting to fill that gap. As you said, in the grand scheme of things, Orcrist is a small drop of water in the ocean, but this being a weapons forum, I don't find it too surprising that we get a little more invested than usual in the design and creation of these replicas.

The irony of it all is, despite all my problems with this sword's design, dragon's teeth, serpent inscriptions, et al, I am such a completist at heart that my Orcrist is already ordered and paid for. In the end, Weta has the last laugh anyway. ;)

Anyhow... I got carried away trying to figure this one out and this got too heated for my likes. Sincere apologies to Kit and anyone else reading this.
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

776
[quote=""Valkrist""]As for the invention itself, I know that all you are doing is trying to rationalize it within the framework of Tolkien lore. I think you are more amenable to it than I am, but that doesn't mean you like it. I'm trying to rationalize it as well, I'm just having a more difficult time than you because I've been opposed to Weta's design choice from the start.[/quote]
Actually, I was more trying to rationalize what Tolkien wrote, and the inherent inconsistency he inadvertently created with the Goblin's recognizing the swords, then later setting Gondolin thousands of years apart from TH when he dated everything in the Annals.

I don't have much to say about the dragon tooth grip other than what I posted a few pages back regarding what I know of it, based on the materials supplied by Weta and the designers comments. They did what they did, and left it open to interpretation about whether the grip and additional inscriptions were original, or added later by Dwarves. I never looked at the films as needing to logically fit in with the written work though. Books are books and films are films. I look at it as an alternate history of Middle-earth, just as I look at the numerous variations of the legendarium told The Histories of Middle Earth as alternate tellings of those histories. Even the "canonical" finished Tolkien works are not exactly the real events according to Tolkien, but have been altered by translations and retellings by those who recorded them. I treat the films the same way. That does not mean I like all of the changes and inventions, but there are more that I do than don't. I'm kind of neutral on the tooth. You can imagine what I thought you guys would think of it when I first saw the prop and read the inscriptions over a year ago :)

[quote=""Valkrist""]At any rate, if any of my comments were taken to be a personal attack, that was certainly not my intent, and I apologize if they were perceived that way.[/quote]
Not sure about that one comment. That's why I asked. I'm sure my "discussions" come across as arguments often on a few of the other forums I post on too :)
Last edited by Nasnandos on Wed Jan 30, 2013 8:20 pm, edited 4 times in total.
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

777
You know Kit, I was thinking about how any of Orcrist's back history from Weta may have been hampered by the rights issues having to do with anything outside of LOTR and The Hobbit. Gondolin is mentioned in TH, but Ecthelion is not. How did they get around this? I don't recall him being mentioned in the Appendices. Come to think of it, they made Hadhafang belong to Idril Celebrindal, so how did they get around that also?

Of course, neither name is mentioned in the movies, so I suppose they can avoid any legal issues that way, but it was mentioned in the UC COA for Hadhafang, and I'm sure the Orcrist COA will mention Ecthelion. Does not writing it down officially on a product for sale also infringe upon the Tolkien Estate's rights, or is it more of a grey area than the movies?
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

778
Ecthelion is mentioned in ROTK, just not that Ecthelion, but it does allow the name to be used by the production.

Based on what I was told during LOTR, and the same for TH, nothing Tolkien outside of the licensed source material can be used in the films, whatsoever. WB even hired a Tolkien e xp ert to review the scripts to be sure of that, and Philippa Boyen's has reiterated how frustrating staying away from that material has been. I don't know any other details about what can be mentioned outside the sources they have rights too, but I'm assuming licensed merchandise is treated slightly different.

I caught several references in the LOTR Weapons and Armor book that were outside of LOTR and the Appendices, plus those references on the Hadhafang COA you pointed out. That history was written by the production, not me or UC. I questioned it at the time, since it was making reference to Sil, but it was approved for use. It was pretty much the same situation with the Orcrist background supplied to us.
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

779
Interesting way to get around it, using Ecthelion II, the Steward, as a coverup for the First Age elf of the same name. I'm also pretty sure Turgon is not named in The Hobbit, yet there he is on the Glamdring COA. I hate that my books are in storage because I can't check the back of ROTK. I also didn't think UC just wrote that up on their own as it seems fairly clear the history comes from New Line and Weta. Either the Estate is not as diligent as many fear, or they can't be bothered with small little details like that. I'm really interested in reading Orcrist's COA, though sadly it won't clear things up much, as you already inferred.
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

780
[quote=""Valkrist""]Interesting way to get around it, using Ecthelion II, the Steward, as a coverup for the First Age elf of the same name.[/quote]
They didn't do it that way at all, as you will see from the COA text, I'm just saying they can use the name with no issues. If there was an issue. As I said, I think the licensed merchandise from the film must fall under slightly different rules than what was in the film, but I don't know those details. Everything goes through a thorough approval process, with a lot of different departments attached.

[quote=""Valkrist""]I'm also pretty sure Turgon is not named in The Hobbit, yet there he is on the Glamdring COA. I hate that my books are in storage because I can't check the back of ROTK. I also didn't think UC just wrote that up on their own as it seems fairly clear the history comes from New Line and Weta. Either the Estate is not as diligent as many fear, or they can't be bothered with small little details like that. I'm really interested in reading Orcrist's COA, though sadly it won't clear things up much, as you already inferred.[/quote] Anything from TH and LOTR can be used, and Turgon is mentioned in detail in FOTR in The Numenorian Kings section. Now that I think of it, so was Idril, just not to the extent used in the COA text.
Last edited by Nasnandos on Fri Feb 01, 2013 3:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

781
Interesting tidbits and good to know. Looks like they can get away with more on merchandise than the movies themselves. It does afford them a bit of latitude when creating histories for these weapons, especially ones that clearly come from the First Age.
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

782
Kit, I hope you don't mind me sharing these photos you posted on therpf.com but I just wanna show the others here who may not have seen them:

Image

Image

Image


Kit, in the first pic of the two swords the top one looks slightly smaller. Is that the Weta prop or UC replica?
Last edited by Lindir on Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
"All those moments will be lost, in time... like tears, in the rain..."

Re: Orcrist Revealed

786
lol... good article. They're not kidding when they mentioned that this sword has provoked the greatest emotive reaction so far. They also left off any mention of their Dwarves of the North theory, focusing instead on the possibility that a dragon's tooth might have been taken to Gondolin, thereby inferring that the tooth is the original hilt and not a later addition.

I guess we'll never know as even the designers apparently never settled on a full e xp lanation and want to leave it to our imaginations. Fair enough. :huh:
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

788
The Chronciles book makes it sound like it was Paul's idea, so it could be Peter reacted to something he saw in the designs and give specific directions after that, or it could have originated with Pete. Hard to say.

One thing I noticed in the Master Swordsmith scabbard pix in that article is that Peter added some belt hanger loops and rivets to make this wearable. There are no slots or loops on the Polyurethane scabbard prop we have for belt or strap fastening, so it was a bit baffling how it could be worn. I noticed in one of the videos with Richard Taylor that there was a very non-Middle-earth metal bracket on the prop that allowed it to be fastened to the shoulder strap, although this was never meant to be seen. Peter had to come up with a way to make this work on a real scabbard, hence the metal loops. I simply added a belt loop to one side of the scabbard for the version we are working on for United.
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

789
So does that mean you wouldn't be about to wear it slung over your back?

It is promising to hear that you are still "working" on it. When I saw the detail and complexity of the scabbard in the Master Swordsmith pictures I was starting to fear that it would prove difficult for UC to reproduce it cost effectively.

It will be fantastic to see this piece made! Orcrist is incomplete without it.

Cheers

Re: Orcrist Revealed

790
Personally, I think it's criminal that so many swords in the LOTR line don't get to be displayed alongside their gorgeous scabbards, but Kit knows the reasons why this is the way it is.

I also find it encouraging that he's still working on the Orcrist scabbard. Hopefully he can make it so the production cost vs. the profit margin is appealing enough to the bean counters at UC and the go ahead is given. I would like to display Glamdring, Sting, and Orcrist together, and the first two already have scabbards. We wouldn't want a lopsided display now, would we? ;)
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

791
I'm also hoping for Orcrist's scabbard, for sure. It is a shame so many scabbards from LotR went unmade, I hope we can remedy that this time around. There might not be as many scabbards anyway, seeing as there are more axes and hammers featured in these movies.
"Remember, the force will be with you, always."

Re: Orcrist Revealed

792
If people bought more scabbards, UC would have produced more. Unfortunately only a tiny number of people who buy the swords also get a scabbard.

The Orcrist scabbard is difficult, but not impossible to make in steel and wood. The problem with making it in steel is the size of the casting dies and nutty tooling cost. Not many would have been sold when the cost would be the same (probably more) than the sword. What we are working on now is a polyresin version.

Collective groan now!
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

793
Hmm... Not quite a groan... It would certainly be much, much better than no scabbard at all. And I have faith that it would to have pass your scrutiny and QC before going into production. It is certainly something I would have to see. Though I highly doubt I would not get it!

Any chance of a Hadhafang scabbard done the same? Now that is one beautiful scabbard! Similarly complex (if not more so) tooling! I jest, only slightly!

Cheers

Re: Orcrist Revealed

794
Even if it does not pass my scrutiny, that does not mean it still won't get made. I have done some tests in the shop to simulate the steel finish on polyresin using chrome paint and paint wash effects, even electroplating, and have a formula that matches the steel look of the Orcrist guard fairly close. That's the critical part. Getting the look to match. The sculpt is done, just waiting on the factory to run a first casting sample, so we will see.

Here is what "fake" poylyresin metal (part in the middle, not the crown) looks like next to a real metal Orcrist part.
Image


As far as a Hadhafang scabbard, since it is not currently in the line, not likely. But it remains to be seen if the sword appears in the next two Hobbit films, so never say never.
Last edited by Nasnandos on Tue Feb 12, 2013 6:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

795
[quote=""Nasnandos""]If people bought more scabbards, UC would have produced more. Unfortunately only a tiny number of people who buy the swords also get a scabbard.

The Orcrist scabbard is difficult, but not impossible to make in steel and wood. The problem with making it in steel is the size of the casting dies and nutty tooling cost. Not many would have been sold when the cost would be the same (probably more) than the sword. What we are working on now is a polyresin version.

Collective groan now![/quote]

I have always purchased the UC scabbards for my swords, however I wish there was an easier way to display them along with the sword. I definitely don't want to display the swords in the scabbards. Maybe more people would buy them if there was an easy way to integrate a scabbard display along side the sword displays.

Re: Orcrist Revealed

796
[quote=""Elf_Friend""]I have always purchased the UC scabbards for my swords, however I wish there was an easier way to display them along with the sword. I definitely don't want to display the swords in the scabbards. Maybe more people would buy them if there was an easy way to integrate a scabbard display along side the sword displays.[/quote]

I agree, although that would inevitably require additional tooling on the plaque or even a separate wall mount for the scabbard altogether, all of which amounts to a higher cost. Kit already mentioned that the scabbards didn't sell well for some reason, so making them even costlier than what was projected would not be a good thing.

I would love to see the scabbards made for the swords we already have, with Hadhafang leading the charge. Sadly, I don't believe we ever will. :(

P.S. - I moved your Fili sword post to a different thread.
Last edited by Valkrist on Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This Space for Rent

Re: Orcrist Revealed

798
No, the scabbards sold well, just nothing like the swords. If even half the people that bought a sword also got a scabbard we would have tried to do one for every sword. We DID develop a scabbard for Hadhafang, as there was a huge demand for it back then. The problem was the costs involved. By far the most complicated and tooling intensive scabbard. That's another one that would have cost more to make than the sword itself. A polyresin version may have been possible but back then we did not even consider that as the market probably would probably not have accepted it. Not sure they would now either, but polyresin collectibles take up far more of the market now than then.

I still have an unpainted urethane casting from the prop scabbard, as well as belts and buckles. It just needs some screen time in TH to get the interest going, but as it is, the sword is not even in production any more.
KRDS

Re: Orcrist Revealed

799
Such a shame. Though I will say that if the option of a poly scabbard for Orcrist arrives, my preorder will be quick to follow. Of course a metal version would be ideal, but I can understand production costs and the current market making them impractical. If we can get a poly scabbard that looks close to your 'fake metal' in that pic, I would be quite happy.

Would be a shame for one of the three "main" swords to not have a scabbard available!
"So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws.
It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other.”

Re: Orcrist Revealed

800
Well, pretty much what I meant: they didn't sell well by comparison to the swords, therefore the end result is that overall sales were low enough that they didn't warrant continuing to produce more. I guess individually, each scabbard had good sales, but as a product line by type, UC didn't see a profit in developing others for production? I would consider the new Sting scabbard an exception because that's a very high profile sword. In fact, I'm surprised the blue scabbard for Glamdring hasn't made an official Hobbit line comeback yet as UC will have zero development costs on that one.

Kit, an open and frank question for you: how much of what you read on here and other forums that you frequent do you pass on to your employers? Is there any weight to our opinions and reviews? Does anything that gets said here affect any future decisions by UC, or is it more of an after-the-fact effect, as in trying to find out from the collecting community why product X was not popular? I know you've stated in the past that you are not in charge of making decisions on what gets made, but do you share your thoughts with the higher-ups at UC, and how much or not at all are those thoughts influenced by anything that we say?

Just really curious because I get the feeling a busy guy like you wouldn't spend time talking to us unless there was some value to you in return. Having said that, if you simply come here for the discussion with no strings attached and purely as a collector like the rest of us, that's good enough for me too and gratifying to know. :)
Last edited by Valkrist on Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
This Space for Rent

Return to “New Products, Release Dates, & Updates”