Young Miniatures - New Releases March 16th

planetFigure

Help Support planetFigure:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
18923913.jpg


I think it's the guy on the far left.

Edit: Yup its him. I missed the title of the figure. Its La Hire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hire
 
Wow they are great busts.
I wish the Fallschirmjager was in 1/16 as I would use that head/face all the time as it is one of the best I have seen.

Ryally
 
Do you think the intent was simply to model it after the movie character? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that. There are many pieces, even some VERY recently, that are made to look like a specific movie chartacter. Not the historical character/person the movie represents, but the actual movie character. I think if we step out for a second and look in, the sculptor has done an absolutely fantastic job of representing a character that is inspired from a film.

Jay H.
Okc
 
There is no doubt in my mind that thats what the bust is modeled after Jay. The armor is wonderfully recreated from the movie and the face, though not an accurate likeness, cerainly conveys and reflects the jovial demeanor of the actor that played La Hire.
I will certainly be picking up the bust spikes and all but I admit that I would much rather have seen it done as a more accurate historical piece. Étienne de Vignolles called La Hire was a definite influence and participant, in the Joan's campaigns and lead the vanguard at Patay. When I see pieces done like this, it has the same effect as seeing Pershing Tanks painted with german markings and called Tigers. Cool that they got a bunch of tanks crossing a field, definately understand that there aren't Tigers around and they had to use something, but its still Pershings painted with german crosses.
The bust really has an appeal to it and is definately one of the nicer releases I've seen lately.
 
renarts said:
But I have to wonder...it would have been just as easy to do the armor right than to add all the fantasy gee gaws on it, so why not?
Because it's easier? Much simpler not to have to do enough research - submersing yourself in the subject - to make informed decisions about likely armour forms for the time and place (in the absence of specific info).

Because most people won't care? Despite this ostensibly being a hobby devoted to historical subjects the jury is in on the question of caring about accuracy.


Sambaman said:
Do you think the intent was simply to model it after the movie character? Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that.
I agree, if it's identified as such. Then those who aren't in a position to know better (might not be up on a given era/subject, or new to modelling) but are interested in historical accuracy don't get misled. Our hobby has always been, and continues to be, infamous for this.

But above all, a direct representation is a breach of copyright without a prior agreement! The Andrea trick of a kinda-sorta name in no way sidesteps the issue... they get away with it simply because they fly under the radar it appears.

Einion
 
Yes the spikes are way over done. I have never seen any surviving armor that looks like this armor. I have never seen any art work form the period that looks like this armor. This armor and most of the armor in the film is very War Hammer inspired.

I do not have a problem with movie inspired figures but they should be labeled as fantasy pieces and not historical pieces. Trust me when I tell you this. it may look cool for a film but those extra points could also get caught on any number of things you might run in to on a battle field and that could be the difference between living and dying.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top