Perry Twins....The Empire!

Fighelm

Fighelm

Baron
FYI Cropped up on my Facebook feed this AM was the 'Perry Miniatures' page. If it's genuine, it states that the Perrys were starting to upload scans/photos of their random sketches/notes/ prelims designs of early (they say from 1978) ideas for GW.

From a recently found notebook from when they were freelancers to employees, all into the late 80's. Here is one put into the Facebook page feed listing original colours of the Empire troops and sigils. Interesting...
 

Attachments

  • Perry twins notebook original heraldry.jpg
    Perry twins notebook original heraldry.jpg
    104.5 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
Eric said:
Very true. I think the Perry's certainly had more interest in the historical flavours underpinning of the Old World fantasy.
Click to expand...
I read they were extras on one of the LOtR films, and obvs sculpted the (fantasy) range, so am being playful here. Both genuinely great artists and- alongside their interests & reanactments (plus a devastating injury) - they are still motivated to do what they love. That Rick Priestley YouTube interview made me chuckle the otherday when he alluded they had kinda grown out of doing the fantasy side of the ranges and instead were asked to sculpt the 40K Catachan Jungle fighters (cos rambo/Vietnam war, ergo historical!) 😂
 
Last edited:
yes... sad to say.. they were.. it's cause they are big fans of the novels, which is why they tried to make it a thing that every time Citadel had the license, they did as many figures as they could for it.

they also have meant to had helped with some of the designs in the new films and series... despite how.. ugh... no comment.

come to think of it.. from the Jackson 'version', I'm sure If still a mini of the two characters they were.. injured solders on a battle field or something.. might be wrong though.
 
Brother Meredith said:
Come on, they were great FILMS! Am sure if they religiously followed the novels I would have lost interest even before the end of book 2… 😉
Click to expand...
never huge fan of the books, when changes are made for adaptations, I try to figure out why they were made. some of the changes made for the film version of Jurassic park (for example) were understandable. others were just awful and I could see no real reason. Others just took what could have been a great film and made is 'good'.. the changes in the second film made it pretty unwatchable.

I'm kinda a 'if you keep to the basic plot and ideas, and the style, you can get way with some more changes'. It's why I think Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century, Puppet Entertainment Sherlock Holmes and Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes are pretty good despite some weird changes, though they did alot of changes, they kinda kept true to the heart of the matter.. where some others are... a case of 'Are you just using this name for the IP value?'
 
best and most faithful, despite it (literally) killing him. Did the odd changes which he allowed but they didn't really ruin or go against anything. (have you listened to the surviving audio of Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke in 'The Secret of Sherlock Holmes'? its not as bad as some claim when they don't understand it, and very interesting, more so due to the cast.)
 
ManicMan said:
best and most faithful, despite it (literally) killing him. Did the odd changes which he allowed but they didn't really ruin or go against anything. (have you listened to the surviving audio of Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke in 'The Secret of Sherlock Holmes'? its not as bad as some claim when they don't understand it, and very interesting, more so due to the cast.)
Click to expand...
Crime is common logic is rare :)
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top