That Great beast Rhino thing is awesome!!!

The watcher in the water is too. I like how they have given it a body and legs so it can actually walk on the battle field now. Its no longer just a nasty octopus its a CREEPY OCTOPUS CRAB LOBSTER!!! Awesome.

I like the Warg riding goblin trio. Very funny.

If you go to the GW website, you can see a 360 view of the model. It's difficult to explain, but the model as a whole looks very awkward.
Here's a link straight to the Watcher: http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat750002a&prodId=prod1460123a

Yes, I do judge models for their appearance relative to the films. As the GW range is based on the films, if a model doesn't particularly flow with PJ and Weta's vision, and therefore the other figures in the GW range, its major points off with me. I would like to be able to imagine the model in a 'deleted scene' or another film. Furthermore, I judge a model for its realistic probability--I consider LotR just about as realistic as it gets for fantasy, so if a model doesn't make realistic sense (even if its not realistic to begin with, if that makes sense), then that's more points off. I also, and this is likely the most important, judge models based just on their visual appeal, which is the most subjective. For example--the Gundabad Blackshield Goblins are very "Middle-earthy" and, perhaps with a darker paintjob, could fit easily into the films' Middle-earth. Disregarding the drum, there's nothing too outlandish about the models either. But I think they look awful. Just plain awful. Good concept, poor execution.The Dwarf range, on the other hand, which was almost completely imagined, is really quite great I think.

Yes, I do judge models for their appearance relative to the films. As the GW range is based on the films, if a model doesn't particularly flow with PJ and Weta's vision, and therefore the other figures in the GW range, its major points off with me. I would like to be able to imagine the model in a 'deleted scene' or another film. Furthermore, I judge a model for its realistic probability--I consider LotR just about as realistic as it gets for fantasy, so if a model doesn't make realistic sense (even if its not realistic to begin with, if that makes sense), then that's more points off. I also, and this is likely the most important, judge models based just on their visual appeal, which is the most subjective. For example--the Gundabad Blackshield Goblins are very "Middle-earthy" and, perhaps with a darker paintjob, could fit easily into the films' Middle-earth. Disregarding the drum, there's nothing too outlandish about the models either. But I think they look awful. Just plain awful. Good concept, poor execution.The Dwarf range, on the other hand, which was almost completely imagined, is really quite great I think.

I usually criticise models for being generally poor (like a number of these new ones), but the ones I don't label as befitting of Middle-earth are usually because they seem to represent generic fantasy units that don't intrinsically evoke The Lord of the Rings. That is, you wouldn't look at them on their own and immediately think that they come from Middle-earth.

Having said that, it only really seems to apply to the more outlandish models. Looking at the Men-at-Arms of Dol Amroth on my paint station here would possibly have the same problem, even though I think they fit nicely. It's a hard one.

The films certainly are a yard stick; perhaps not the only one but a very important one with which to judge GW's offerings. This might not be so essential if this system wasn't established around the films, but it is and so that factor dominates.
The Great Beast, for instance, is a model we see in the films. I think it sucks though, because it is being used in a manner contradictory (maybe not the right word) to that in which it was employed in The Return of the King. It's described by Tolkien as pulling Grond, it's shown in the film as pulling Grond, it's released by GW carrying Orcs. That doesn't line up for me.

To be honest though, I don't think many of these new models are particularly bad for not belonging in Middle-earth; certainly not so much as, say, Gulavhar.

The Armies of Middle-earth:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp

The Armies of Middle-earth:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/wnt/blog.jsp

Am I reading that right? You can only take a maximum of 12 infantry or 8 cavalry per hero in your force?

Most important to me...
ONLY ONE NAMED HERO!!!

Saruman's Palantír no longer lets him cast spells anywhere on the board, but lets him auto-win priority once a game.

I only play SBG, but have always played to that rule anyway as per the one rulebook. In what rulebook does it say he can cast anywhere on the board?

There are some quite interesting new facts we can gather from looking at the book excerpts: for instance, Saruman's Palantír no longer lets him cast spells anywhere on the board, but lets him auto-win priority once a game. I think this is a good thing, as immobilizing any hero anywhere on a 2+ was kinda cheesy after all.