Someone mentioned doing this in another thread, so I thought I'd start the thread.
For me, my vote would have to go for Big Eyes, Small Moth 1st Edition, which is so bad that apparently I can't find actual images of it on the Internet.
I did find this in a Google search though, and it seems indicative:
(http://www.ayrsayle.net/Drawings/dee1.jpg)
Star Wars - Players Guide to the Tapani Sector. Decent book, terrible, terrible cover.
(http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/9/92/Players_Guide_to_Tapani.jpg)
That cover is awful! Made me laugh, though.
Almost all of WEG's early art for Torg and Star Wars.
WEG d6 Star Wars, any b/w art by Allen Nunis. The guy did some Star Wars comic books and then landed the recurring job with WEG. I just don't like his style, especially the 'realistic' way he tries to do faces and his asymmetrical perspectives of ships.
(http://deckplans.00sf.com/Telgorn/Gamma_RASB.jpg)
(http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/4/32260-4861-35977-1-classic-star-wars_large.jpg)
Psh. The stuff on this thread so far is weak sauce compared to the absolute shit found in Elder Secrets of Glorantha for 3rd edition Runequest.
D&D 3.0 for all the stupid looking spikey armor. Plus the fact that so much of the artwork got in the way of reading the rules. It's like someone never told their layout dept that Text needs a good contrasting background to be readable...
Quote from: greylond;458209D&D 3.0 for all the stupid looking spikey armor. Plus the fact that so much of the artwork got in the way of reading the rules. It's like someone never told their layout dept that Text needs a good contrasting background to be readable...
Emphasis mine.
I can think of several pages in WotC books where you have a piece of artwork right in the middle of a text block and the text block 'wraps' around the art, making it difficult to read and even harder to understand. It looks like the interns got ahold of Microsoft Publisher and decided to get creative with the layout.
There was also the WotC module
Scourge of the Howling Horde which had several instances of black text on a charcoal grey background with cursive writing on that background, making the module text illegible for all practical purposes.
I really need to scan, Dark Refuge, I feel bad because the authors got hammered on RPG.net with no one having owned or read the game. I picked it up to give them a fair shake. Yet the art is TERRIBLE. It might not be so bad, if it weren't all blurry. But even then, some of it is very very rough.
D&D's 3e era had come choice morsels:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/misterguignol/Bad%20Art/senmurv.jpg)
and this classic:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/misterguignol/Bad%20Art/86313.jpg)
Quote from: misterguignol;458216D&D's 3e era had come choice morsels:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/misterguignol/Bad%20Art/senmurv.jpg)
I totally want to lose 75% my hair, gain 50 pounds and wear this one on a t-shirt.
Here you go from Dark Refuge's Web page:
Ah here:
(http://www.darkrefuge.net/sitebuilder/images/JDOg_QuallNdrone-429x600.jpg)
(http://www.darkrefuge.net/sitebuilder/images/Brook_4_1_The_Peoples_Champion-263x379.jpg)
Quote from: Aos;458218I totally want to lose 75% my hair, gain 50 pounds and wear this one on a t-shirt.
If you work hard at it, even you may someday achieve this goal.
Quote from: Silverlion;458219Here you go from Dark Refuge's Web page:
Ah here:
(http://www.darkrefuge.net/sitebuilder/images/JDOg_QuallNdrone-429x600.jpg)
That would look great doodled on a trapper-keeper.
Quote from: Cole;458220If you work hard at it, even you may someday achieve this goal.
Ice cream and nair are the twin secrets to power!
There was some book for a WW game that had a world or location map that was a vagina.
Yes, for reals. I can't remember what book it was, though.
doesn't get much crappier than some of the OD&D stuff...
Quote from: Soylent Green;458199Star Wars - Players Guide to the Tapani Sector. Decent book, terrible, terrible cover.
(http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/9/92/Players_Guide_to_Tapani.jpg)
I actually like this. It drives the point home.
Quote from: skofflox;458245doesn't get much crappier than some of the OD&D stuff...
See, that stuff doesn't bother me at all... it's not technically good... but it has a certain gusto and fire to it that makes me like it just the same.
The stuff I TRULY hated was some of the crap illustration Dan Smith did for GURPS. It's certainly not all bad... but some of his stuff is gawdawful lifeless and dull.
Larry Elmore is in that same camp.
Art can be bad on more than one level... in my book not being interesting beats out lack of technical skills.
That Star Wars cover looks like it was badly rushed. The lettering is the worst of it IMO.
There is amateurish art, which can be charming in its own way, and there is just-plain-bad art, which has no saving grace. The cheesecake Avalanche Press covers from the early d20 era are representatives of the latter.
ReichStar. (just read through a friend's copy tonight)
A good lot of the sourcebooks for Hero System 5th Edition.
JG
Seems to me that all the really bad art in games is done by the same guy! it all looks the same!
Please the Old D&D stuff was the worst
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iDLxxWwwaE0/TZDehfA5EnI/AAAAAAAABHM/KiNGg_w-sFQ/s1600/monster_manual1.jpeg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HpeS0gxeMu8/TYc8WpZUiaI/AAAAAAAAAF0/MzYUywpVtdo/s1600/Holmes%2BCover.jpg)
And the all time winner ....
(http://images.unurthed.com/modron-monodrone-87.jpg)
Now you can say 'Oh know I love that art it remnds me of when I was 12 and first found D&D' however doesn't stop it from being really very very very bad.
You might argue Elmore or the Brothers Hilderbrand produce terrible art but you are missing the fact that they can draw and are competant draughtsmen. Their choice of subjects might not appeal but. And worst of all the Mondron came out in '83 when D&D was at the height of popularity it wasn't like they had no money to spend.
You can see the same thing with MTG cards that went from this
(http://www.coolstuffinc.com/images/Products/mtg%20art/Legends/Kobolds%20of%20Kher%20Keep.jpg)
to this
(http://aidanmoher.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MTG_Apocalypse-Hydra.jpg)
And people still say that the original art is better.....
Don't forget the picture of the races in the 1e PHB. I tried looking for a copy of it online, but the only one I could find was too big to post in a forum.
There was certainly some good inspirational art back then, but there also was quite a few duds.
I think older RPGs get a pass because they were trailblazing. It wasn't AN INDUSTRY so much as a few hobby companies having a go at sharing ideas with like-minded gamers.
Around 1990/'91 I think the paradigm shifted enough that your art had to be good.
I mean there's just no, I mean zero excuse for, say, some of the Battletech TRO:3055 illustrations. Wait, never mind. Any and ALL of the TRO:3055 illustrations. Even the ones done by that Japanese company held up poorly.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;458306I think older RPGs get a pass because they were trailblazing. It wasn't AN INDUSTRY so much as a few hobby companies having a go at sharing ideas with like-minded gamers.
According to an Old Geezer's post I read on rpg.net, the time when those "older RPGs" were published were the highest point of the industry.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;458306I think older RPGs get a pass because they were trailblazing. It wasn't AN INDUSTRY so much as a few hobby companies having a go at sharing ideas with like-minded gamers.
Around 1990/'91 I think the paradigm shifted enough that your art had to be good.
I mean there's just no, I mean zero excuse for, say, some of the Battletech TRO:3055 illustrations. Wait, never mind. Any and ALL of the TRO:3055 illustrations. Even the ones done by that Japanese company held up poorly.
They were trail blazing RPGs though not Fantasy Art.
I was a fan of fantasy before I played D&D and remember that in the 70s you had art like this
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vCJ5ph6Hw5w/Set69sb_x2I/AAAAAAAAC_8/CDkMFM7OAtQ/s400/BV_Iron+Warrior_1970s.jpg)
and this
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iEoNUB1KJgU/TaZQ1kD5jlI/AAAAAAAABGY/A9VvkPAu9u8/s1600/conan-the-barbarian-9d0c6d3f9429922c.jpg)
And loads of kids in art school dying to try stuff like that so there is no excuse for this
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SE2QyIi4h7s/TYlrTsMWbZI/AAAAAAAAAF8/2MTaPasAr3Y/s1600/hobgoblin.jpg)
Quote from: jibbajibba;458269You might argue Elmore or the Brothers Hilderbrand produce terrible art but you are missing the fact that they can draw and are competant draughtsmen. Their choice of subjects might not appeal but. And worst of all the Mondron came out in '83 when D&D was at the height of popularity it wasn't like they had no money to spend.
Shit is shit, competency makes it even less forgivable.
Quote from: jibbajibba;458313And loads of kids in art school dying to try stuff like that so there is no excuse for this
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-SE2QyIi4h7s/TYlrTsMWbZI/AAAAAAAAAF8/2MTaPasAr3Y/s1600/hobgoblin.jpg)
My friends and I call this kind of stuff "little brother art" as in someone who was involved with TSR had a little brother in need of a job.
I'm not making excuses for the bad art (and it abounds from day one to now). IIRC Frank Mentzer mentioned they tried to get Frazetta and other guys but couldn't afford it.
And, JibbaJabba, no, old D&D stuff was not the worst. Sorry, it just wasn't.
Quote from: Aos;458314Shit is shit, competency makes it even less forgivable.
So this
(http://tohs.webs.com/Death%20of%20Sturm%20-%20Larry%20Elmore.jpg)
You don't like?
or this one maybe
(http://membres.multimania.fr/skanlon/pictures/Larry_ELMORE/ElmoreDDExpertRPG.jpg)
and you prefer
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9XzDGnDAGDc/TMZXEAzu-VI/AAAAAAAAARo/pBqFO-GOT-c/s1600/mmelf1.jpg)
Loved the "little brother art " idea. I always figured it was the only way the TSR art director ever got laid.
Quote from: jibbajibba;458269You can see the same thing with MTG cards.
I have to interject that no matter how good the MtG art has become, and I agree that there is a lot of good art there, reducing or cropping the art to a 2 inch by 2 inch image to fit on a card renders a lot of it to the realm of crap. A lot of that art should be sold as prints or be full page images in a coffee table art book.
I think they've done at least one MtG coffee table art book, actually.
Quote from: Aos;458315My friends and I call this kind of stuff "little brother art" as in someone who was involved with TSR had a little brother in need of a job.
Good phrase.
I always figured that in those cases the company in question had no contact with artists and no money. So the art gets done by the best artist among the seven gamers associated with the project. No previous experience required.
Often low quality printing didn't help.
Quote from: jeff37923;458320I have to interject that no matter how good the MtG art has become, and I agree that there is a lot of good art there, reducing or cropping the art to a 2 inch by 2 inch image to fit on a card renders a lot of it to the realm of crap. A lot of that art should be sold as prints or be full page images in a coffee table art book.
Here you go -
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Magic-Gathering-Lizz-Baldwin/dp/0786911786
I have also bought a couple of original pieces direct from the artists at Cons.
Quote from: Nicephorus;458324Good phrase.
I always figured that in those cases the company in question had no contact with artists and no money. So the art gets done by the best artist among the seven gamers associated with the project. No previous experience required.
Often low quality printing didn't help.
Traveller though has almost no art.
No art is better than most of the stuff in the AD&D books (you could read that two ways but you know what I mean).
Sadly though as I noted above the Mondron art was done in '83 when D&D was at its Prime.
If you can't work out that an add in Heavy Metal (or even Dragon itself) could get you hundreds of art submissions for buttons then well....
Quote from: Melan;458253There is amateurish art, which can be charming in its own way, and there is just-plain-bad art, which has no saving grace. The cheesecake Avalanche Press covers from the early d20 era are representatives of the latter.
Cheesecake? Their art just targeted gamers' loins (http://rpgshared.blogspot.com/2010_05_01_archive.html), 's all!
YES, I will take this
(http://www.lordkilgore.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/paladin-in-hell.jpg)
And this
(http://www.fierydragon.com/img/04.jpg)
And this
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/TJOjor2vLJI/AAAAAAAABCw/Gi2FmPsp9mA/s1600/emirikol-the-chaotic.jpg)
And this
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iBDQOXCHTEU/TJgvKMEBfVI/AAAAAAAAA6g/YuA7buOteT4/s1600/Mouth.gif)
Over this
(http://tohs.webs.com/Death%20of%20Sturm%20-%20Larry%20Elmore.jpg)
Any day.
I will admit the early D&D art includes some lousy work, but once they had Otus, Roslof, Trampier, Willingham, etc. some of it was great - I would definitely take those guys over the Elmore style stuff any day. I mean I would rather listen to a Pere Ubu record than an REO Speedwagon record, and if the speedwagon is slickly produced that only makes it worse. Elmore is not REO Speedwagon level terrible, he had some decent pieces like the mentzer box set covers, but he hits his stride and we're pretty much in renn faire territory.
Quote from: Melan;458253There is amateurish art, which can be charming in its own way, and there is just-plain-bad art, which has no saving grace. The cheesecake Avalanche Press covers from the early d20 era are representatives of the latter.
I think your nostalgia is getting in the way.
I'll take that, too, if we're talking colored art.
(http://enrill.net/images/GDQ/pics/D2-800.jpg)
Benoist,
You're cherry-picking the best art available in the old editions.
Quote from: danbuter;458333Benoist,
You're cherry-picking the best art available in the old editions.
You mean kind of like Jibba is going for the worst examples he can find at the lowest resolution possible?
Give me a fucking break.
What, 4 pages in and no mention of MRQII?
Granted, it's no contender for "worst art ever" in a hobby which boasts the OD&D LBBs and the cover to the AD&D 1e MM, but there are some mighty eyesores in this otherwise excellent book.
(http://i.imgur.com/mnfEd.png)
"So, Dante Alighieri, Conan, Sub-Zero and Oogh the Neanderthal meet in a tavern..."
(http://i.imgur.com/yk39N.png)
A little-known fact is that MRQII is the perfect system for your homebrew Tron game. To quote the great Michael Caine, not many people know that.
(http://i.imgur.com/1mv9p.png)
Here Mongoose unveils a storyboard for the upcoming Conan The Barbarian Disney animated feature.
(http://i.imgur.com/Dl2Db.png)
Problem: Skybolt is too powerful. Solution: Attach lame picture to awesome spell. Hope no one will pick it up because of the horrible art.
(http://i.imgur.com/Hu47h.png)
I'll get that bitch a phylactery. Bitches love phylacteries.
(http://i.imgur.com/wMqxF.png)
[obligatory Monty Python reference]
(http://i.imgur.com/LlewE.png)
I like my cheesecake as well as any red-blooded heterosexual male, but this is just lazy. "I have a spikey thing on my shoulder, so you know I'm Evil. And Evil is Hot." Also dragon(s?) on the background. Try harder, artist.
(http://i.imgur.com/KTUHv.png)
Orlanth the Dragon? Orlanth the Transvestite is more like it.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;458244There was some book for a WW game that had a world or location map that was a vagina.
Yes, for reals. I can't remember what book it was, though.
That would be the map of the island setting from
Children of the Sun, which (as far as I know) doesn't have anything to do with White Wolf. The cover art for the old
Clanbook: Tzimisce has been mocked for similar reasons, though.
I guess it wouldn't be the RPGsite if every thread didn't devolve into a D&D edition war.
Quote from: The Butcher;458335What, 4 pages in and no mention of MRQII?
Granted, it's no contender for "worst art ever" in a hobby which boasts the OD&D LBBs and the cover to the AD&D 1e MM, but there are some mighty eyesores in this otherwise excellent book.
I have to admit I cracked up at some of this, especially:
Quote from: The Butcher;458335I'll get that bitch a phylactery. Bitches love phylacteries.
Quote from: The Butcher;458335(http://i.imgur.com/mnfEd.png)
"So, Dante Alighieri, Conan, Sub-Zero and Oogh the Neanderthal meet in a tavern..."
The picture isn't that good, but that sounds like a solid RQ adventuring party to me.
Quote from: jibbajibba;458318snip.
I don't like any of them; is that okay?
I like the stuff Ben posted, though.
This is the point in the discussion where I would link to
Brilliance and dross in RPG artwork, an essay originally published in Imazine #37. Unfortunately, since Imazine has vanished from the face of the Internet, and I have failed to contact the author, you will have to do with selected quotes.
QuoteBrilliance and dross in RPG artwork
by Matt Stevens
...
Pabulum and professionalism
Like most roleplayers, I think the majority of rolegame artwork is crap. On the other hand, and again like most roleplayers, I think at least some rolegame illustrations are fairly good. But when we get down to cases and try to separate the best work from the shit, I find I often disagree with many roleplayers. Most rolegamers, it seems, judge artwork on the basis of its realism and professionalism. They condemn the amateurish scribbling of the early rolegames, comparing them unfavourably to the slick colour prints of today.
I'm not sure that rolegame artwork is getting any better – in some ways, I'd say it's actually getting worse. The problem isn't the skill of the artists, which has improved greatly over the past 25 years. Unfortunately, professionalism alone isn't going to produce great works of art, and we have to recognize that if we want to promote greatness in the future.
We could argue for months over what makes a 'great piece of art' great. But for the sake of argument, I'll say that a great piece of artwork intrigues the spectator. It should catch her attention, fascinate her, show something she never saw before. This 'something' can be an unusual subject, something fantastic or surreal. It can also be a strange juxtaposition of commonplace objects, or mundane things portrayed in unusual ways. It can even refer to a perplexing expression, a look that resists easy interpretation. A great piece of art should provoke interesting questions, without providing simple answers to them.
I don't know if there's been any truly 'great' roleplaying art, but some of it has been strikingly inventive, even if the vast majority has been bland and unimaginative. The problem, unfortunately, is that as roleplaying artists have become more professional, and the industry has grown more commercially savvy, bland, corporate pabulum is becoming even more prominent than it used to be.
It's important for us to recognize that much of today's rolegame art is worse than bad. It's ordinary. The quality of draftsmanship has improved mightily since the late 1970s. Clearly, there are lots of people in the industry who know how to draw. This makes it all the more tragic when they produce work of little or no value.
Take the artwork in 3rd edition D&D Player's Handbook – please. An illustration by Todd Lockwood is reproduced above. It's a picture of a dwarf with an axe, a shield, a bow and a shitload of armour. This dwarf is given a name, 'Tordek,' but it's unclear why he's different from the thousands we've seen elsewhere, from Lord of the Rings calendars to DragonLance paperback covers. He's a generic short, stocky guy with a beard. So what?
Wizards of the Coast spent thousands to give us a Player's Handbook with full-colour illustrations of Tordek and his fun-loving friends, but it's unclear what, if anything, we're supposed to get from them. Todd Lockwood obviously knows how to paint the human figure. His draftsmanship compares favourably to an old tsr artist like Darlene Pakul [sic], who drew that notorious bat-winged succubus in the first Dungeon Master's Guide. But Darlene's plump, cowering demoness titillated thousands of teenage boys. 'Tordek' will never titillate anyone. You could replace his portrait with a photo of a tractor or a piece of cabbage and no one would notice the difference.
...
Transcending naturalism
You'll almost never see rolegame artwork that transcends a rigid naturalism. We may talk about creating a 'new art form,' but our art is decidedly reactionary. We act as if the 20th century – or hell, even the late 19th – never took place.
It's too bad. While one could make an argument for naturalism in rolegame art – one could say it helps make the fantastic seem real, a vital role in a roleplaying product – one could also argue that naturalism can never completely mirror the worlds of our imagination, and a freer approach may be more evocative of other worlds and other cultures. At the very least, in our efforts to evoke alternate realities, we should draw upon whatever sources of inspiration we can find. By ignoring all Western art after 1850 (not to mention the indigenous traditions of Africa and the Americas), we've cut ourselves off from a huge visual vocabulary. Those who transcend the limits of naturalism should be commended for broadening artistic possibilities.
Some of the earliest art in roleplaying games was more inventive in this respect. Consider Erol Otus for example, an old favourite of mine. His work was crude, sometimes even revolting, and I would never claim that he was consciously attempting to 'transcend naturalism.' He probably couldn't have penned a 'realistic' work if he wanted to, his technique was far too primitive. Still, I find that many Otus drawings catch my attention, and stick in my mind far longer than other early rolegame artists do. His style evokes the exotic and the macabre in a way that few other artists can match. His depictions of the Cthulhu Mythos in Deities and Demigods (see previous page) fascinated me far more than the much more professional illustrations in the Call of Cthulhu rulebooks, and I believe it's because his folk-art grotesqueries suited the Mythos far better than later naturalistic works.
Another early rolegame artist who deserves a mention is Professor M A R Barker, the visionary behind the world of Tékumel. I'm not particularly fond of Barker's later work, in Swords and Glory for example, which are often little more than pin-ups of topless babes, rendered in a dull naturalist style. His more ambitious works in Empire of the Petal Throne, however, deserve lavish praise. Check out the illustration on the previous page. You might respond with knee-jerk hostility to the naked woman in the corner, but it shouldn't blind you to the power of the work. The masks, which seem to float in the darkness, are an imaginative touch, and there is a palatable sense of horror and dread to the scene. It's unfortunate that so little work in today's rolegames can match the power and imagination of this primitive, 25-year old sketch.
...
Evoking other worlds
Good work can be done in a naturalist style, but it requires more than just the ability to draw realistically. Most rolegame artwork is mediocre not because it's naturalistic, but because its subject matter is dull. That portrait of 'Tordek' (previous page) is typical: Someone posing with his weapons. Just about every rolegame illustration is either (a) a portrait of someone with a weapon, or (b) a combat scene. Thank the Gods for creature catalogues and monster manuals, because they're the only reliable sources of imaginative artwork in the field today.
...
To restate the author's points in my words: Elmore ("Norman Rockwell in Krynn", as rogueattorney put it on Dragonsfoot) and the likes of Boris Vallejo produce artwork which is the geek equivalent of bodice ripper cover illustrations (of course, it could be said that Dragonlance
is the geek equivalent of a bodice ripper -- complete with ripped bodices, even), or kittens playing with balls of yarn, or Kinkade's bucolic villages and snow-covered homes. They are technically proficient, easy to digest but do not offer anything beyond the superficial.
Frazetta, on the other hand, was a genuinely talented and visionary artist who happened to work in commercial genres. His work is good not because it has detail, but because it is full of furious energy, passion, and a masterful use of colour and light. His works have another hidden layer: coyness behind beauty, desperation behind brutality, and menace behind lush environments.
Artists who had worked for old RPGs were a different sort: they were a more random assortment, mostly not very good technically, but when they were on, they were on. Also note that nobody is
really bringing up Greg Bell as an example of a great illustrator, or art from the AD&D Monster Manual II as examples of good illustrations. The pieces that are brought up are Trampier monsters, Otus covers, maybe David Sutherland's DMG cover with the City of Brass on it. And I would say that beyond the resonance of nostalgia, they are the ones that have something more to them.
Quote from: danbuter;458331I think your nostalgia is getting in the way.
I think the
rose-coloured glasses fallacy is getting in yours, Ace. :teehee:
from Brilliance and dross in RPG artwork: "much of today's rolegame art is worse than bad. It's ordinary." states the overall issue well. But his example of Tordek is poorly chosen. The illustration isn't supposed to show how Tordek is different from other dwarves. It's supposed to communicate what the hell a dwarf is in D&D, so it's showing a typical dwarf.
However, it is part of a general shift from action scenes to portraiture, which is simpler to draw due to lack of backgrounds and easier to resize without the whole scene being scrunched.
Quote from: Melan;458345I think the rose-coloured glasses fallacy is getting in yours, Ace. :teehee:
Oo, a fancy term for nu-uh!
Quote from: danbuter;458354Oo, a fancy term for nu-uh!
Well, "nuh-uh" is about the right response to the "it's just nostalgia" card.
Less talk and more pictures, you fuckers.
Anyway, this is hardly the worst art to happen in the history of rpgs, but it's always bothered me:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/misterguignol/Bad%20Art/ADV_strahd_s.jpg)
You'd think that the fact that all vampires in Ravenloft are blue-skinned would be a dead give away.
Seriously, why is Strahd a fucking Smurf???
Quote from: misterguignol;458360Less talk and more pictures, you fuckers.
Anyway, this is hardly the worst art to happen in the history of rpgs, but it's always bothered me:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/misterguignol/Bad%20Art/ADV_strahd_s.jpg)
You'd think that the fact that all vampires in Ravenloft are blue-skinned would be a dead give away.
Seriously, why is Strahd a fucking Smurf???
Artistic license? Heh, I generally think of it as vampires turn the weird undead colors only when they hulk out with satanic power, but, on the other hand, it is D&D, there are lots of reasons you could be blue.
Maybe it's just the artist's easy-way-out for doing a night scene.
Quote from: Cole;458363Artistic license? Heh, I generally think of it as vampires turn the weird undead colors only when they hulk out with satanic power, but, on the other hand, it is D&D, there are lots of reasons you could be blue.
Well sure, but in a campaign setting that often boils down to the characters trying to figure out which NPC is the monstrous villain, having them be a big blue bastard kinda gives it away! ;)
Quote from: islan;458368Maybe it's just the artist's easy-way-out for doing a night scene.
Heh, note that the Stevie Nicks-looking chick in his arms has not turned blue in the moonlight.
Quote from: misterguignol;458370Heh, note that the Stevie Nicks-looking chick in his arms has not turned blue in the moonlight.
Maybe Barovians display sexual diporphism, like peacocks or something. "That Nicolae, the miller's son is such a handsome fellow, and
so blue!"
Quote from: misterguignol;458370...the Stevie Nicks-looking chick in his arms...
You mean Elmore Blonde #2. (Elmore chicks are kind of like the standardized food colorings listed on ingredients labels.)
I dislike the posed nature of many of Elmore's pieces. There was one piece of his that I really liked, though. It was a knight on horseback coming towards you, with a couple of orcs or something running or trying to get out of the way.
Quote from: Benoist;458334You mean kind of like Jibba is going for the worst examples he can find at the lowest resolution possible?
Give me a fucking break.
Um actually I just typed in AD&D monster manual and picked the stuff I found from the 1st edition stuff.
There were some decent artists in the early days David Trampier, Jeff Dee, Erol Otus even (at least he did a style well) but the majority was pure unadulterated shit.
Get your 1e monster manual and leaf through it right now 90% of that is shit. Yes you have Trampier's excellent homonclulous and his genre defining Rakshasa but I am sure the orcs, hobgoblin, elf etc were drawn by a 'little brother' with their feet.... and don;t even get me started ont eh gynosphinx.... OMG.
Even if you think you can forgive MM1 after all early days and you can't get DAT to draw all of it ..... Why get Emmanuel to put that awful Gith picture on the front of the Fiend Folio ... I mean really.
But by the time MM2 (despite the great Easley cover) comes out you can actually afford to get artists your, in house magazine has good quality cover art each month and you are a place where artists actually want to get their name puplished then you allow the Jann, the Hybsil and ..... the Modrons Not only are they a fucking stupid idea in the first place but they actually look like they were drawn by an arthritic 1 year old penguine with alzheimer's I mean really ....
(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/aprilfools_modron3.jpg)
I mean WTF!!!!!
I will take bland Elmore stuff over stuff where the company are actually saying 'we can print any old shit in this book and you will buy it because we don't give a fuck about anyone you and we are all about the money so I will get my kid brother to knock up 50 pictures tomorrow'. (I hasten to add this copy of MM2 was a gift - also as an aside I rarely use monster manuals at all except as an inspiration and ...)
Now my favourite D&D artists are Trampier and Easley and later Brom. My favourite all time picture from any games book is the cover of the Dungeoneer's survival Guide. That picture didn't just inspire a game it inspired a whole D&D genre/playstyle for me. But Easley had other classics the one where the fighter chick is pulling the ogre/giant up by his nose, the cover of the Wilderness Survival Guide, etc
So most Epic fail art definitely AD&D. They
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;458373You mean Elmore Blonde #2. (Elmore chicks are kind of like the standardized food colorings listed on ingredients labels.)
I think that's actually Caldwell blonde #2. The big hair is big in a different way. Fluffier maybe.
While I love Shadowrun and Earthdawn, some of the art is pretty bad:
(http://www.torgan.net/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/chaman_urbaine.jpg)
Laubenstein has some awesome pics, and some that might be technically good, but look awful.
The worst piece of art that comes to mind is an interior illustration from one of those Avalanche Press d20 books. It was a barbarian. I think he had a peace sign tattoo or something. I just Googled for a picture of it, but either my Google-fu is weak or it's so bad that nobody scanned it.
Quote from: Cole;458375I think that's actually Caldwell blonde #2. The big hair is big in a different way. Fluffier maybe.
Yeah, you're right! Hah! Easy mistake to make.
That big shiny round gem should've been a dead giveaway.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;458373You mean Elmore Blonde #2. (Elmore chicks are kind of like the standardized food colorings listed on ingredients labels.)
I always just assumed that those guys all had a fetish for Stevie Nicks.
Quote from: misterguignol;458381I always just assumed that those guys all had a fetish for Stevie Nicks.
Now I think about it, that sounds highly probable.
Quote from: misterguignol;458381I always just assumed that those guys all had a fetish for Stevie Nicks.
That's awesome, and possible true. :rotfl:
I watched an episode of Magnum PI on DVD recently wherein Magnum made out with the actress who went on to play the mom on 7th heaven. Lovecraft never created anything so horrific as what passed for attractive in the 80's.
Quote from: danbuter;458376While I love Shadowrun and Earthdawn, some of the art is pretty bad:
(http://www.torgan.net/wp-content/uploads/2005/12/chaman_urbaine.jpg)
Laubenstein has some awesome pics, and some that might be technically good, but look awful.
See that I like.
Its excellent technically you can tell the guy knows how to draw and he put thought into the composition.
Modrons are cool.
Jibba: you need to read the quote Melan injected into this thread.
Quote from: Aos;458385I watched an episode of Magnum PI on DVD recently wherein Magnum made out with the actress who went on to play the mom on 7th heaven. Lovecraft never created anything so horrific as what passed for attractive in the 80's.
Aw come on give tom Sellek a break they made him keep the moustache ...
Quote from: jibbajibba;458388Aw come on give tom Sellek a break they made him keep the moustache ...
I am both Magnum and Sparticus.
All bow before Magnum Sparticus!
There is some serious over rationalization in this thread for what is some awful art.
Why is it so hard for some of you guys to admit any fault on the part of your pet games?
DC Heroes is one of my all time favorite games and even I can admit there's some real garbage. Especially those awful character cards.
I should post some pics later so we can get back to pointing and laughing.
Quote from: Aos;458390All bow before Magnum Sparticus!
Wouldn't that be Magnus Spartacus, then? :D /Latin nazi
Quote from: Benoist;458387Modrons are cool.
Jibba: you need to read the quote Melan injected into this thread.
Um .. i did and I agree I will take a Jeff Easley picture of a guy climibing a cliff covered in coloured impy things any day over a bland Elmore wavy big hair in the wind girl but Mondrons are not interesting or inspiring the artwork doesn't inspire me to do anything except close the book.
There is charm, an Otus cartoon of a bunch of guys arguing over a +3 backscratcher is charming, there is technically poor but kind of inspiring, but then there is merely technically incompetent and dull to boot. Mondrons are in the later category along with
(http://mikemonaco.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/phbrac.jpg)
What I'm not agreeing to is twofold, Jibba: (1) You've been cherry picking pictures to basically engage in some basic edition warring, and (2) your definition of what is "good art" is NOT universal. The notion that only the aesthetics matter when determining whether a picture is good or bad is bullshit.
We could start talking about art, but then J Arcane will go on a bullshit rant about how we can't discuss about this because it's all "just RPG illos" and we should "get over ourselves" and all this kind of bullshit nonsense. Whatever dudes. Keep at it.
Rifts Madhaven was awful. But I have seen a lot of small press stuff that looked like art rejected from a High School literary magazine. Just the most terrible stuff you have ever seen. Art done by people that apparently have never laid eyes on an actual human form.
So, judging by his facial expression, that half-orc is giving a double rectal exam.
Quote from: Aos;458399So, judging by his facial expression, that half-orc is giving a double rectal exam.
They ret-conned that in 3e: now the half-orc has a double-headed axe.
Quote from: Benoist;458394What I'm not agreeing to is twofold, Jibba: (1) You've been cherry picking pictures to basically engage in some basic edition warring, and (2) your definition of what is "good art" is NOT universal. The notion that only the aesthetics matter when determining whether a picture is good or bad is bullshit.
We could start talking about art, but then J Arcane will go on a bullshit rant about how we can't discuss about this because it's all "just RPG illos" and we should "get over ourselves" and all this kind of bullshit nonsense. Whatever dudes. Keep at it.
Dude you find me a decent picture in the AD&D PHB, MM or DMG that isn't by Trampier, Otus or Dee and I might conceed you a point. But if you want to actually win a debate you would have to proove that at least 1/2 the pictures were decent. I can certainly provide over half of them that are shit.
I totally understand youir nostalgia for the old edition but you need perspective.
MM1 G -
Gar - moderate
Gargoyle - moderate to bad
Gas Spore - bad technically but has a nice idea behind it
Ghost - moderate
Ghoul - bad
Giants - Cloud one of DATs weakest peices, Fire - Good (DAT), Frost - moderate to bad, Hill - bad, Stone - Excellent (DAT), Storm - bad technically but like Gas spore has a good idea and some movement
Gnoll - OMG SIIIIIITE
Gnome - actually this one might be worse
Goblin - Good (DAT)
Golem - Clay - poor, Flesh - Okay (DAT), Iron - poor techncialy but a good feel to it, Stone - poor
Gorgon - Good (DAT)
Gray Oze - poor
Green slime - moderate
Giffon - Good but for an iconic creature its very passive
Groaning spirit - Bad (and its one of DATs)
So that is one of the best letters in the book and we had
2 - completely awful
6 - bad with no redeeming features
3 - bad technically but with nice movement or a feel to them
2 - moderate/bad
4 - moderate
5 - good - all but one by DAT
Man you should see how awful H is .....
Quote from: Aos;458399So, judging by his facial expression, that half-orc is giving a double rectal exam.
No wonder half elves can't breed , they are all gay!
Quote from: jibbajibba;458402I totally understand youir nostalgia for the old edition
Fail.
Quote from: James Gillen;458256ReichStar. (just read through a friend's copy tonight)
A good lot of the sourcebooks for Hero System 5th Edition.
JG
ReichStar was bad on so many levels I don't think I have any memory of the art.
Since none of you arswipes seemed to have believed me, I've been forced to sully my photobucket account with these images;
(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x292/grapperyeah/Scannen0003.jpg)
(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x292/grapperyeah/Scannen0002.jpg)
(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x292/grapperyeah/Scannen0001-3.jpg)
I'd fap to that.
Quote from: Aos;458421I'd fap to that.
Which one?
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;458423Which one?
All three, although the top one isn't so hot now that I've realized that what I initially took to be a stream of wood-grained vomit is some kind of armor.
Quote from: Machinegun Blue;458420Since none of you arswipes seemed to have believed me, I've been forced to sully my photobucket account with these images;
Wow, just... wow. Where are those from, again?
OK a couple of things that I at least found slightly disturbing.
First off, the Harlequin class from SenZar. Sorry about blackspace due to scan error.
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/harlequin150.jpg)
(Hey Aos...the mimes ARE jealous)
And then there's this one from old small-press RPG Monsters & Slayers. Looks fine on initial inspection...
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/bird150.jpg)
But on a close look...wtf is the bird doing?
Quote from: jibbajibba;458393(http://mikemonaco.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/phbrac.jpg)
That picture always made me laugh. Of special note is the half-orc, which looks like some evil wizard cut off a full orc's head, and replaced it with Lloyd Bridge's head. And Lloyd seems really, really
happy about it.
Way back in the late eighties Siroz Productions published Whog Shrog. Some guys at my local rpg club tried to recruit players for it but I must say with this kind of art...
(http://www.legrog.org/visuels/couvertures/10.jpg)
...it was a tough sell. It seemed the game was about playing space warriors that kicked dozen asses every second... which is kind of nice but sounds like it's going to get old real quick. I didn't know about an end game where PCs could develop human feelings back then. It might have made me read the book.
Quote from: J Arcane;458391There is some serious over rationalization in this thread for what is some awful art.
Why is it so hard for some of you guys to admit any fault on the part of your pet games?
I'm not arguing that there's plenty of bad art in the AD&D/Basic D&D stuff, I just think some of it is also really good.
As for more stuff that's junk, it's not bad in a
hilarious way or anything, but I remember around 1995-onward chaosium's art for the CoC and Elric/Stormbringer lines just became horrible. "Little-brother" stuff, especially that they'd do a weird matte grey two-tone for shading. Awful, but I don't know if I want to set up the scanner just to have to look at that junk again.
Quote from: boulet;458430(http://www.legrog.org/visuels/couvertures/10.jpg)
That guy looks kind of like an X-TREME reboot of Uncle Creepy.
Quote from: Aos;458385I watched an episode of Magnum PI on DVD recently wherein Magnum made out with the actress who went on to play the mom on 7th heaven. Lovecraft never created anything so horrific as what passed for attractive in the 80's.
Viz. Temple of Doom.
Quote from: Cole;458432That guy looks kind of like an X-TREME reboot of Uncle Creepy.
Never heard of Uncle Creepy before, now I feel... more knowledgeable!
Irony addition: Whog Shrog was supposed to take some of its inspiration from Philippe Druillet's bandes dessinés and
that should have sold me immediately.
Here are some sample of Druillet's stuff that might illustrate how far the Whog Shrog illustration is from its target.
(http://www.astrosurf.com/joseribeiro/Druillet.jpg)
(http://www.entrecomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/dru07.jpg)
(http://artmight.com/albums/2011-02-07/art-upload-2/d/Druillet-Philippe/bs-fut-Astroport-of-Delirius-%5BDruillet%5D.jpg)
Quote from: boulet;458437Here are some sample of Druillet's stuff that might illustrate how far the Whog Shrog illustration is from its target.
See now that's good stuff.
Get that good stuff out of here!
I cleave to the idea that bad art isn't just a matter of lacking technique. A lot of the old D&D art was poorly done (some was plagiarized from comics, and still poorly done) but none of it offended me with its horribleness. Whereas I really can't stand a lot of the Elmore stuff.
That Elder Secrets art is impressively bad but even it has a sort of style.
What I thought of when I saw this thread was some of the interior art in Riddle of Steel. This was mentioned before: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=55744&highlight=jackson#post55744
I don't have any scans, though--I sold the game off a while ago.
As promised, I've snapped some shots of some of what I consider the worst offenders in the DC Heroes card deck that came with 2e. Sorry about the quality, the iPad 2's camera is absolute rubbish.
Here's the spread:
(http://i.imgur.com/3h5oq.jpg)
Right close-up:
(http://i.imgur.com/wUBYM.jpg)
Left close-up:
(http://i.imgur.com/3ldZK.jpg)
And finally, the most infamous culprit of them all, this is supposed to be Black Adam:
(http://i.imgur.com/5UtfR.jpg)
Oh man, they caught Batman mid-dump.
Quote from: J Arcane;458447As promised, I've snapped some shots of some of what I consider the worst offenders in the DC Heroes card deck that came with 2e. Sorry about the quality, the iPad 2's camera is absolute rubbish.
Some of those poses are really uncomfortable to look at. What is up with Hal Jordan's pose? It has has distressing shades of "Goodbye Horses." (http://youtu.be/faZ8hJSX1Q4)
a thread about bad art and no mention of Gurps 4e art? The covers were so bad that the fans made a big stink about them until they decided to have a contest to change them from this crap. Note the girl with the dildo gun.
(http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/poll/set1.jpg)
Unfortunately, the interior art didn't change and is mostly horrible. And this is after SJ bragged about how good the art would be.
Most of the 2e Planescape art was pretty bad.
Quote from: RockViper;458456Most of the 2e Planescape art was pretty bad.
Get out of here.
Quote from: J Arcane;458447And finally, the most infamous culprit of them all, this is supposed to be Black Adam:
(http://i.imgur.com/5UtfR.jpg)
On the other hand, if you pretend that picture is of Bizarro Black Adam, then it retroactively becomes a fucking amazing idea for a villain.
Quote from: jibbajibba;458402Dude you find me a decent picture in the AD&D PHB, MM or DMG that isn't by Trampier, Otus or Dee and I might conceed you a point. But if you want to actually win a debate you would have to proove that at least 1/2 the pictures were decent. I can certainly provide over half of them that are shit.
I totally understand youir nostalgia for the old edition but you need perspective.
MM1 G -
Gar - moderate
Gargoyle - moderate to bad
Gas Spore - bad technically but has a nice idea behind it
Ghost - moderate
Ghoul - bad
Giants - Cloud one of DATs weakest peices, Fire - Good (DAT), Frost - moderate to bad, Hill - bad, Stone - Excellent (DAT), Storm - bad technically but like Gas spore has a good idea and some movement
Gnoll - OMG SIIIIIITE
Gnome - actually this one might be worse
Goblin - Good (DAT)
Golem - Clay - poor, Flesh - Okay (DAT), Iron - poor techncialy but a good feel to it, Stone - poor
Gorgon - Good (DAT)
Gray Oze - poor
Green slime - moderate
Giffon - Good but for an iconic creature its very passive
Groaning spirit - Bad (and its one of DATs)
So that is one of the best letters in the book and we had
2 - completely awful
6 - bad with no redeeming features
3 - bad technically but with nice movement or a feel to them
2 - moderate/bad
4 - moderate
5 - good - all but one by DAT
Man you should see how awful H is .....
Boy, do you have shitty taste in art!
Quote from: RockViper;458456Most of the 2e Planescape art was pretty bad.
I disagree!
That's just your feelings of nostalgia getting in the way of your proper judgment.
Quote from: Aos;458515That's just your feelings of nostalgia getting in the way of your proper judgment.
He went through one panty explosion too many.
Some fun stuff all!
Not one decent illus. in the 3 OD&D bookletts (even the woodcut stuff in MERP was more inspiring). :o.
I am hard pressed to call any illus. in "High Fantasy" (the RPG) -good-.
Lots of that new GURPs stuff is bland and Elmore leaves me cold for some reason.
I find Les Evans ("Sorcerer and Sword"), P.D. Breeding, Bill Sienkiewicz (Bard games) and Erik Wilson (various "Dragon Warriors") very evocative,moody,full of implication and inspiring most of the time....which is what I want from RPG art.
Don't have the artists name in front of me but some of the "SLA Industries" stuff is awesome.
Seems to be good and bad illus. in most RPG books...:)
All in the eye of the beholder!
In my opinion, art expresses something that the artist feels. If it isn't doing that, its just a picture. Most of this stuff are just pictures.
Even though a lot of the 1e art was weak technically, I feel like the artist is really trying to give you a sense of something special.
On the other hand, a lot of the later art, especially from the books, don't really convey much other than, "here is a picture of what the book says." I look at it and think, "I know that's what it looks like. I can read." Portraits aren't really art.
Quote from: danbuter;458508I disagree!
Same here. I thought it was really neat.
Quote from: Benoist;458328YES, I will take this
(http://www.lordkilgore.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/paladin-in-hell.jpg)
And this
(http://www.fierydragon.com/img/04.jpg)
And this
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mFjy4EWzmtg/TJOjor2vLJI/AAAAAAAABCw/Gi2FmPsp9mA/s1600/emirikol-the-chaotic.jpg)
And this
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iBDQOXCHTEU/TJgvKMEBfVI/AAAAAAAAA6g/YuA7buOteT4/s1600/Mouth.gif)
I think these are amazing.
Yeah, those are great!
:)
Quote from: Machinegun Blue;458420(http://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x292/grapperyeah/Scannen0001-3.jpg)
Wow, if you ever wanted to know what your orc mother-in-law looked like, voilà!!
Quote from: misterguignol;458360Anyway, this is hardly the worst art to happen in the history of rpgs, but it's always bothered me:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v81/misterguignol/Bad%20Art/ADV_strahd_s.jpg)
You'd think that the fact that all vampires in Ravenloft are blue-skinned would be a dead give away.
Seriously, why is Strahd a fucking Smurf???
Maybe it's an elf's point-of-view shot? Lady's still alive and warm, shows up in warm colours, Strahd is a cold moving corpse.
What you folks have to realise is that old RPG stuff (amateurish, "little brother") and new (blandly professional) are equally crap. Here's some good RPG art:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Ardre_Odin_Sleipnir.jpg)
(http://www.egyptsbookofthedead.com/images_or/page3lg.jpg)
(http://www.kitchenclarity.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Roman-Mosaic-Merida.jpg)
(http://traumwerk.stanford.edu/philolog/Odysseus-Sirens.jpg)
Otus and Elmore fans can shut up and fuck off equally.
EDIT: Oops, forgot I just posted here...
Quote from: J Arcane;458447As promised, I've snapped some shots of some of what I consider the worst offenders in the DC Heroes card deck that came with 2e. Sorry about the quality, the iPad 2's camera is absolute rubbish.
Those all look like they're by contemporary DC artists. Not that they're any good, mind, but they're by the regular artists from the comics. The GL John Stewart is a Joe Staton, and the Hal Jordan looks to me a bit like a Gil Kane inked by a blind man. I think the Dr Fate might be Shawn McManus (artist on the late 80s Fate series) but I'm not certain on that one.
The Batman is a Jim Aparo, so I feel forced to try to defend the dodgy posing by saying it must have been clipped out of a scene where it made sense and Bats was sitting on a gargoyle looking broody or something... but in all honest Aparo did put out a couple of clunker poses every issue I think, they've just picked a bad shot of his here.
Quite why they didn't just us the Jose-Luis Garcia Lopez licensing illios is beyond me, those things are beautiful.
The only bad art that comes to my mind when I think of the 2e era is the art in the Forgotten Realms box set, specifically the interior art. Definitely add that to the list of bad art.
Outside of saying that it doesn't inspire or feed your "creative itch", I don't see how people think "high fantasy" art of that era is bad.
It's certainly true that most RPG art is illustration rather than ART but personally I prefer my RPG books to be illustrated by a professional illustrator than "Created" by Tracey Emin or Damien Hirst.
There seems to be a feeling that some hopeless artist (say David C. Sutherland III who is responsible for a huge % of the 1eD&D shit art - look for the tell-tale DCS sig) somehow puts more of himself into the work its purer or has a greater blah, blah, blah, the fact of the matter is that he just isn't very good. You might not like Elmore's composition but his technique is fine he can in short draw. Sutherland couldn't draw, its not complicated it's just a lack of skill.
The fact that he was the TSR artistic director might explain a lot :)
If you look at modern games things are different. You can get good peices of illustration work for very little from a range of websites. An A5 line drawing comes in at about $20 and a lot of the illustrators will give you use of their existing peices for less so there is no excuse for a modern game to have sucky art (even if there wasn't a lot of excuse in the old days...)
Quote from: Cranewings;458554I think these are amazing.
Clearly, you haven't been reading the thread... no you don't!
Those GURPS covers are godawful. So glad they changed them -- I don't think I could try to convince people to try out the system with the dildo gun making everyone uncomfortable. They even have the shitty old font from the previous editions. Blech.
I will agree that GURPS art is mostly filler and almost none of it is in any way memorable. I think that's why a lot of the old D&D art stands out to me -- maybe some of it's nostalgia, but I also think illustrations like the old AD&D ones above (Paladin in Hell, the magic mouth) are distinctive and tell a bit of a story. They spark the imagination.
So much RPG art now is technically very slick and attractive, but it's just bland. Guy with a sword looking angry. Sorceress in a dress with a neckline ending at the navel and fuck-me boots looking dazed. Who cares? I leaf through my Pathfinder book and there's plenty of art that looks great, but almost nothing that inspires -- whereas I can look at something like the old Emirikol the Chaotic picture and still get inspired.
Just my view through the old rose-colored glasses or whatever.
Quote from: Insufficient Metal;458589I will agree that GURPS art is mostly filler and almost none of it is in any way memorable. I think that's why a lot of the old D&D art stands out to me -- maybe some of it's nostalgia, but I also think illustrations like the old AD&D ones above (Paladin in Hell, the magic mouth) are distinctive and tell a bit of a story. They spark the imagination.
That's probably why they are considered iconic pieces in the hobby ;) . Seriously, I love those pieces.
On the subject of GURPS, I saw a copy of an old MARS book at my FLGS the other night. Real bad photoshop job mixing three different pictures together. Blegh.
I quite like Wayne Reynolds, both in 3.x and Pathfinder. A bit busy for my tastes, but he has a certain something that makes his pieces work. Likewise, White Wolf's art direction has often been above-average, sometimes very good. So there is that.
DCS could draw well if he was given the time to do it properly. Again, Paladin in Hell and the DMG cover are technically deficient but at least interesting - the former for its light-shadow play (look at the swirling darkness in the background, for example), and the latter for the colourful vision of the City of Brass - not a photorealistic depiction; rather, something you would find on the cover of a period fairy tale book. A lot of his small pieces are substandard, but one reason for that is they are mostly sketches that literally had to be completed in a few days or so.
Quote from: islan;458590On the subject of GURPS, I saw a copy of an old MARS book at my FLGS the other night. Real bad photoshop job mixing three different pictures together. Blegh.
The nadir is probably GURPS Magic, which is a bunch of touched-up Poser 3D (http://poser.smithmicro.com/poser.html) art. It's a really common bit of hyperbole on the internet to say "I could do better in my spare time," but that's one instance where I feel like I really could.
Quote from: Melan;458593I quite like Wayne Reynolds, both in 3.x and Pathfinder. A bit busy for my tastes, but he has a certain something that makes his pieces work. Likewise, White Wolf's art direction has often been above-average, sometimes very good. So there is that.
DCS could draw well if he was given the time to do it properly. Again, Paladin in Hell and the DMG cover are technically deficient but at least interesting - the former for its light-shadow play (look at the swirling darkness in the background, for example), and the latter for the colourful vision of the City of Brass - not a photorealistic depiction; rather, something you would find on the cover of a period fairy tale book. A lot of his small pieces are substandard, but one reason for that is they are mostly sketches that literally had to be completed in a few days or so.
The fact that he might have been rushed offers some leeway I guess but its a professional project he doesn't have to be rushed :) I can't believe that by 83 TSR didn't have the cash to get in some decent artwork for MM2 for example. It's probably not a coincidence that once DCS left TSR he found it hard to get work.
If you are doing a job professionally then be a professional about it. If I expect to get paid for a piece of work then I really ought to be competent. I am not going to pay a mechanic to fix my car if he is goign to leave it til the day I turn up to collect it and do a half-arsed job of it.
Pulsar Game's Blood of Heroes had to have had the most godawful art in it that I had seen in quite a while. Sorry, no pics but look around; I'm sure you'll find some out there...somewhere...
That what appeared to be the owner(s)' home brewed game universe was: A. tacked onto the rules to provide some sort of over-arching "setting," to put your game, B. this game universe was so 80-90's POWERMETALAWSOMEEXTREME that it is painful to read for anyone older than, say, 18ish and C. the art provided only went to further illustrate said POWERMETALAWSOMEEXTREMEishness only added to this trainwreck of a book to me.
Honestly, I tried to read it. Hell, I wanted to read it for the MEGS system alone but each and every time the art just made me put the book down after a while. Ugh.
jibbajibba: There are no excuses for the MM2; it is simply bad in art and content alike.
This thread hasn't had enough mention of Mongoose. I tried finding images from Quintessentail Fighter online but no luck. I don't think I have it to scan as I might have gotten rid of it - the content wasn't any better than the art.
Here are some examples from Mongoose's version of Macho Women with Guns.
http://images.geeknative.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/e14-babzuka.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kKjrNsGlZbE/TAkba5fhcxI/AAAAAAAAAfA/NZ70wXnZ0aM/s320/mwwg-d20.jpg
I get that it's a supposed to be a humorous rpg. But poorly drawn cheesecake is just slightly disturbing.
Here's an example of something that isn't great art but is effective in communicating something in the game. That's a creepy little dude.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-q4aWM8TGUpo/TXygdg4DXuI/AAAAAAAAAfQ/E3J5SGgGz-A/ErolOtus_B2Hermit.jpg)
Oh shi-, it took me a while to even see him! :eek:
I wonder if there was anyone who had that books for months, saw that pic a dozen times, and then late one night it catches their eye...
Quote from: jibbajibba;458597The fact that he might have been rushed offers some leeway I guess but its a professional project he doesn't have to be rushed :) I can't believe that by 83 TSR didn't have the cash to get in some decent artwork for MM2 for example. It's probably not a coincidence that once DCS left TSR he found it hard to get work.
If you are doing a job professionally then be a professional about it. If I expect to get paid for a piece of work then I really ought to be competent. I am not going to pay a mechanic to fix my car if he is goign to leave it til the day I turn up to collect it and do a half-arsed job of it.
The value of art is subjective. Why label stuff you don't like as incompetent?
I'm not a big fan of Picasso but I don't have to say that he couldn't paint just because I don't happen to be a fan.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;458609The value of art is subjective. Why label stuff you don't like as incompetent?
PC races in AD&D are, as far as I know, supposed to have relatively symmetrical heads.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
Quote from: Danger;458598Pulsar Game's Blood of Heroes had to have had the most godawful art in it that I had seen in quite a while. Sorry, no pics but look around; I'm sure you'll find some out there...somewhere...
That what appeared to be the owner(s)' home brewed game universe was: A. tacked onto the rules to provide some sort of over-arching "setting," to put your game, B. this game universe was so 80-90's POWERMETALAWSOMEEXTREME that it is painful to read for anyone older than, say, 18ish and C. the art provided only went to further illustrate said POWERMETALAWSOMEEXTREMEishness only added to this trainwreck of a book to me.
Honestly, I tried to read it. Hell, I wanted to read it for the MEGS system alone but each and every time the art just made me put the book down after a while. Ugh.
I don't normally post on here (though the forum is very interesting to read, especially when the swearing and name calling starts!) but felt a need to back you up as I feel your pain (currently running a supers game and about to switch to the MEG system).
(http://i53.tinypic.com/j78f3l.jpg)
Editorial meeting: "We need a cover that SELLS! What have we got?" "Well we have this thing with an orange background and the terminator, plus an exotic dancer and a grey skinned tribal tattoo guy. There's another guy with shorts on who seems to be wearing tights underneath and a ninja standing on a purple rug." "Eh? Where are the superheroes? How come there's no background?" "It was cheap." "Yeah? Let's go with it."It's all downhill from there. 3rd Edition DC Heroes was such a let down after the amazing amount of stuff you got in 1st and 2nd edition, but with art by the DC guys and an easy to read layout, it was a billion times better than the eye bleeding text blocks of Blood of Heroes. Most of the pictures look like they were meant for a fantasy game, and even then, a good (say... 100%) proportion of those are just shit. The layout is eye wateringly dull as well. A missed opportunity, and ripe for a reboot, but whoever owns the system now has long forgotten about it...
(http://i51.tinypic.com/1zf6140.jpg)
Here we have a superheroine in an all action pose demonstrating her super powers. Or perhaps it's someone going to a comic convention and they went in their aerobics gear. Perhaps her power is making the world and her surroundings disappear, or more likely the artist got bored and couldn't be bothered with a background. Most of the pictures are like that.
And the characters in the back. *nnnngh*
Editorial meeting: "Hey guys, we ran out of time. What do we do with background setting?" "Stick any old shit in. Seriously, who cares?" "Ok, we only have 10 minutes before we go to press anyway." And so on.
They would have been better off making a smaller book, maybe PDF only, stick to the basics (the system is fantastic, my favourite for supers) and spend the money they save on someone who can spruce up the inside with some nice layout, and a few reasonable pictures from artists who aren't in school drawing on their notebooks.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;458609The value of art is subjective. Why label stuff you don't like as incompetent?
I'm not a big fan of Picasso but I don't have to say that he couldn't paint just because I don't happen to be a fan.
No there is subjective value, I like this I don't like this, Boris is too static, Frazetta has real movement etc. and there is basic incompetence.
I can't draw, sad to say I don't have the talent, if I drew a picture of an orc and put it in my Book you could rightly say that guy can't draw. You might even say I feel a bit gyp'ed as this is supposed to be a prefessional book and I paid money for it and the illustrations have been scribbled in by a mate of the author.
You can find a heap of stuff on Deviant art done by highschool kids that is comparable to the majority of 1eD&D output. That isn't a subjective thing its a competancy thing.
They say a good test of an artist is if you can draw a perfect circle freehand, DCS couldn't draw one with a compass.
Quote from: APN;458626I don't normally post on here (though the forum is very interesting to read, especially when the swearing and name calling starts!) but felt a need to back you up as I feel your pain (currently running a supers game and about to switch to the MEG system).
<...snip ...>
They would have been better off making a smaller book, maybe PDF only, stick to the basics (the system is fantastic, my favourite for supers) and spend the money they save on someone who can spruce up the inside with some nice layout, and a few reasonable pictures from artists who aren't in school drawing on their notebooks.
Welcome to purgatory :)
Quote from: Fifth Element;458611PC races in AD&D are, as far as I know, supposed to have relatively symmetrical heads.
I understand the point you're trying to make, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
Everyone has thier personal level of what is acceptable for certain types of art but consider the context in which the art is presented.
Lets use the modron art that everyone points to as the universal example of bad. Modrons are silly creatures, geometric shapes with limbs and faces. These things look like rejects from the Cat who hated people cartoon.
Suppose the art for these things was rendered by Boris Vallejo. We would have smooth clean lines, realistic faces and muscle tone, and they would look totally badass.
This would, IMHO, miss the point entirely. Modrons
are silly creatures and it is fitting that the depictions of them are somewhat childlike.
The slapstick silly cartoon-like art of early D&D was perfect for the attitude of the time. As serious heroic fantasy became more popular the demand for more serious art came with it.
Original D&D was all about the lulz and the art reflected that.
I love the Blood of Heroes cover in a "so bad it's good" way. The guy in shorts looks like he's dancing, with streamers coming off of him no less. It's like cosplay night at a disco.
Luckily, the were too under the radar to get sued for the obvious Terminator ripoff.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;458634Everyone has thier personal level of what is acceptable for certain types of art but consider the context in which the art is presented.
Lets use the modron art that everyone points to as the universal example of bad. Modrons are silly creatures, geometric shapes with limbs and faces. These things look like rejects from the Cat who hated people cartoon.
Suppose the art for these things was rendered by Boris Vallejo. We would have smooth clean lines, realistic faces and muscle tone, and they would look totally badass.
This would, IMHO, miss the point entirely. Modrons are silly creatures and it is fitting that the depictions of them are somewhat childlike.
The slapstick silly cartoon-like art of early D&D was perfect for the attitude of the time. As serious heroic fantasy became more popular the demand for more serious art came with it.
Original D&D was all about the lulz and the art reflected that.
But Mondrons, were not from OD&D knocked up by Dave and Gary for a fun session in 1976 they came out in MM2 in 1983 when D&D was a phenomena with massive media interest etc etc .
If we were talking about an article in a fanzine where the players get trapped in a geometrical puzzle and the monsters , wait for it, all look like shapes with arms and I knocked up some sketches ..... then meh....
What you have is a professional product sold and marketed it as such.
The Otus cartoons fit the early D&D for lulz but they are generally competent and show a mastery of that particular style.
What if the monster rules or powers has been equally amateurish? Clown-men that through custard pies at PCs or feathered tickling monsters that cause a PC to drop all their equipment....
Quote from: jibbajibba;458637But Mondrons, were not from OD&D knocked up by Dave and Gary for a fun session in 1976 they came out in MM2 in 1983 when D&D was a phenomena with massive media interest etc etc .
It probably went something like this. Gygax was spending most of his time in LA trying to make D&D a Hollywood brand and enjoying the last days of disco. The Blumes were power tripping and spending money like made. All of a sudden, they realized that they actually needed to put out product. They whipped something out, with many of the monsters already published in Dragon or modules. They were too far in debt due to bad management to pay much to real artists but figured "Fuckit, with D&D on the cover, it'll sell."
Quote from: APN;458626I don't normally post on here (though the forum is very interesting to read, especially when the swearing and name calling starts!) but felt a need to back you up as I feel your pain (currently running a supers game and about to switch to the MEG system)..
Thank you.
That goddam "Anarchy Man,"; always jumping, snarling and waving that knife and pistol around and those stupid power cables/things...gah! All is really needed is Liefeld-level amount of pouches all over his jumpy, snarly ass to really take it to the next level of EEEXXXTRREEEMMMEEE.
Quote from: Danger;458648Thank you.
That goddam "Anarchy Man,"; always jumping, snarling and waving that knife and pistol around and those stupid power cables/things...gah! All is really needed is Liefeld-level amount of pouches all over his jumpy, snarly ass to really take it to the next level of EEEXXXTRREEEMMMEEE.
I'd bet good money the composition of the that cover is a swipe.
Quote from: Nicephorus;458642It probably went something like this. Gygax was spending most of his time in LA trying to make D&D a Hollywood brand and enjoying the last days of disco. The Blumes were power tripping and spending money like made. All of a sudden, they realized that they actually needed to put out product. They whipped something out, with many of the monsters already published in Dragon or modules. They were too far in debt due to bad management to pay much to real artists but figured "Fuckit, with D&D on the cover, it'll sell."
Now that sounds about right :)
See, I actually like lush, bodice-ripping fantasias. Yes they are over-the-top cheesy, but cheesy, just like amateurish, are merely facets of subjective definitions of bad art. Now what's inexcusable is professional art (y'know, stuff that's been paid for) that comes off not even amateurish, but novice and uninspired. Now that deserves a kick in the pants. If you're trained and paid but the best you can do is sloppy, eww...
But yeah, give me Julie Bell & Boris Vallejo everyday (a bit unfair, they were very talented). Hell, even "tumescent... bosoms!" Harlequin-esque art (the romance publisher) is fun stuff, if a bit dispelling of any "Role playing is serious stuff!" vibe at the table. Though I must admit, as much as I may love cheesecake, Avalanche press could really put more effort. I don't mind my game modules sharing space with Low Rider & Maxim magazine, but at least invest a bit more passion into the rendering.
As for bad art, that's something I'd rate on an individual basis -- which I kind of thought was the point of this topic (not another edition flame war). We are talking about worst individual art, right? Or are we talking about a single book with the worst art total? Because, if we're now ending up doing the latter, it's a terrible, terrible waste of a fun topic.
What the industry really needs is a supers RPG based on Leifeld's supers. Then we'd have entire books of objectively terrible art to make fun of.
Thanks for the 'welcome to purgatory' - guess I'll check my hat, coat and soul in at the door before venturing in here too often :)
As for the Liefield art, I wasn't sure what the fuss was about the guy until I looked it up.
(http://i52.tinypic.com/2lt0t8l.gif)
I've never seen a human being with a forearm wider than her waist, a backside you could land a plane on norks you can open the door with from several metres away, I must admit.
That said, the art in question is better than that of Blood of heroes simply because its got more background in than most of that games art.
I gather Liefield can't draw feet either. Didn't some of his work get used for a game? Fuzion or Champions millennium or something? I'll have to look it up.
Then avoid it like the plague.
That Blood of Heroes cover reminds me a lot of one of my few art targets of actual hate, rather than amused mockery:
(http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061211012111/fallout/images/thumb/3/31/D20_final.jpg/830px-D20_final.jpg)
What's just as bad is they apparently liked it so much, that when their license was pulled and they had to "switch" to a new setting, they didn't really go out of their way to change it much:
(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090913223609/fallout/images/thumb/7/7f/Exodus-cover.jpg/474px-Exodus-cover.jpg)
Instructive article : The 40 Worst Rob Liefeld Drawings (http://www.progressiveboink.com/archive/robliefeld.html)
Quote from: APN;458714Thanks for the 'welcome to purgatory' - guess I'll check my hat, coat and soul in at the door before venturing in here too often :)
As for the Liefield art, I wasn't sure what the fuss was about the guy until I looked it up.
(http://i52.tinypic.com/2lt0t8l.gif)
I've never seen a human being with a forearm wider than her waist, a backside you could land a plane on norks you can open the door with from several metres away, I must admit.
That said, the art in question is better than that of Blood of heroes simply because its got more background in than most of that games art.
I gather Liefield can't draw feet either. Didn't some of his work get used for a game? Fuzion or Champions millennium or something? I'll have to look it up.
Then avoid it like the plague.
I have never heard of this man before.
But the answer is Champions Millenium. The art in that is ridiculous, and that picture is horrific.
Quote from: APN;458714(http://i52.tinypic.com/2lt0t8l.gif)
My actual reaction:
I don't see what's soOHMYGAWD!
I think I've found a new worst game art nominee: Eoris.
People were glowing about this game in the other thread, which just proves to me, along with the defense of some of the worst of D&D art, how utterly terrible the local taste here is.
This stuff is shit. It is exactly the kind of awful, tacky, overly glowy, cliched, mostly half-photoshopped Poser model shit I see for sale in mall painting shops. For fuck's sake the logo is a fucking wolfs head and there's one of those mini-dreamcatchers with the feathers attached "hanging" off the end of the menubar on the website.
(http://i.imgur.com/Lj1Be.jpg)
Look at this shit:
(http://i.imgur.com/9ite8.jpg)
And then we have this piece that opens the sample adventure (clouds in space WTF im surprised there's no unicorn), which I might point out is followed by four pages of fucking Photoshop textures with tribal tattoo logos in the middle before it gets to some actual text (which is illustrated mainly with photoshopped CGI anime weapons):
(http://i.imgur.com/drRkl.jpg)
We are also treated to this splash page of a woman with no arms, a shirtless Korean man, Snow White, and what looks like one of the Final Fantasy leads photoshopped into spikier armor:
(http://i.imgur.com/Gnd3x.jpg)
This one that looks like someone just discovered Photoshop filters yesterday:
(http://i.imgur.com/Qnppk.jpg)
A couple more samples that I'll post without comment:
(http://i.imgur.com/0glmF.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/WTKJM.jpg)
And finally, the image I feel sums up best exactly the kind of drek that best represents this kind of art:
(http://i.imgur.com/F1Rcl.jpg)
Now all it needs is two more of those and a moon, and you could put it on a T-shirt.
Quote from: Aos;458515That's just your feelings of nostalgia getting in the way of your proper judgment.
DiTerlizzi is a well-known,
good artist. Not like much of the crap in 1e, but you know that.
And my comment that you quoted was that Benoist was really digging for the good pics. Out of the hundreds of images in the 1e PHB, DMG, and MM, there are probably 25 good pictures. The rest look like High School doodles.
Quote from: J Arcane;458730I think I've found a new worst game art nominee: Eoris.
People were glowing about this game in the other thread, which just proves to me, along with the defense of some of the worst of D&D art, how utterly terrible the local taste here is.
Wow, that is godawful
Quote from: danbuter;458732DiTerlizzi is a well-known, good artist. Not like much of the crap in 1e, but you know that.
And my comment that you quoted was that Benoist was really digging for the good pics. Out of the hundreds of images in the 1e PHB, DMG, and MM, there are probably 25 good pictures. The rest look like High School doodles.
Looks like I hit a little too close to the mark :rotfl:
Eoris is the high point of style over substance. And it's not even a very good style. As J Arcane correctly points out, it's basically imitation JRPG art that's so stylised and artificial that it's impossible to tell what the world is like.
The game is that angels are trying to kill God because she wants to commit suicide but can't do it herself. God lives on a giant planet that floats around through the universe with people living on the inside IIRC. You're a human or talking magical animal or some other kind of angel trying to stop them. It uses d20s for a dicepool system.
Quote from: APN;458714Thanks for the 'welcome to purgatory' - guess I'll check my hat, coat and soul in at the door before venturing in here too often :)
As for the Liefield art, I wasn't sure what the fuss was about the guy until I looked it up.
(http://i52.tinypic.com/2lt0t8l.gif)
I've never seen a human being with a forearm wider than her waist, a backside you could land a plane on norks you can open the door with from several metres away, I must admit.
That said, the art in question is better than that of Blood of heroes simply because its got more background in than most of that games art.
I gather Liefield can't draw feet either. Didn't some of his work get used for a game? Fuzion or Champions millennium or something? I'll have to look it up.
Then avoid it like the plague.
Every comic book artist from the 30s to the present draws human beings with absurd anatomical proportions. What makes this guy so bad?
Quote from: Fifth Element;458611PC races in AD&D are, as far as I know, supposed to have relatively symmetrical heads.
Says who?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;458609The value of art is subjective. Why label stuff you don't like as incompetent?
Because he touches himself at night.
QuoteI'm not a big fan of Picasso but I don't have to say that he couldn't paint just because I don't happen to be a fan.
Picasso didn't draw demi-humans' heads symmetrically.
Quote from: jibbajibba;458597The fact that he might have been rushed offers some leeway I guess but its a professional project he doesn't have to be rushed :) I can't believe that by 83 TSR didn't have the cash to get in some decent artwork for MM2 for example.
What the fuck do you want in a gaming manual? Rembrandts? The sketches by Sutherland, Holloway, Parkinson, Wham and the others are meant to give the reader an idea of what a creature looks like. On that score, the art is more than "competent".
QuoteIt's probably not a coincidence that once DCS left TSR he found it hard to get work.
Vermeer wasn't really a "competent" artist, seeing as how he died in abject poverty, as did Van Gogh.
And who says these books were "professional"? Was Gygax a professional writer? These books were made by hobbyists for hobbyists. Hobbies being things people work on for the fun of it rather than as a job.
QuoteIf you are doing a job professionally then be a professional about it. If I expect to get paid for a piece of work then I really ought to be competent. I am not going to pay a mechanic to fix my car if he is goign to leave it til the day I turn up to collect it and do a half-arsed job of it.
There's an objective standard as to whether your car was fixed. There is no objective standard when it comes to drawing make believe monsters.
You are one dumb twat.
Quote from: Elfdart;458760Every comic book artist from the 30s to the present draws human beings with absurd anatomical proportions. What makes this guy so bad?
Aww come on, man. We can't even all agree that Liefeld sucks?
Quote from: jgants;458769Aww come on, man. We can't even all agree that Liefeld sucks?
I dunno, I never heard of him before someone brought him up on another board a year or so ago. I stopped giving a shit about comics in general in 1981, so the idea of "good" and "bad" comic art strikes me as being every bit as silly as good rap "music" vs. bad rap "music". If you're old enough to remember Carmine Infantino drawing Princess Leia with a square head (when he had photos to work with!) then this Liefield person doesn't seem like any big deal.
Quote from: jgants;458769Aww come on, man. We can't even all agree that Liefeld sucks?
I agree that he sucks, but he isn't really a stand out in the department of suck. Look at the Larry Leiber's issues of Journey in to Mystery or even some of the secondary artists in Marvel's Cosmic line or the guy drawing ultimate Spiderman right now. It seems to me what makes people mad is that he made a ton of money whilst sucking. He was in the right place at the right time. There are dozens of equally mock worthy cartoonists.
And, yeah anatomical exaggeration is one of the key tools of cartooning.
Quote from: jgants;458769Aww come on, man. We can't even all agree that Liefeld sucks?
Count me in, bro
Quote from: APN;458626The layout is eye wateringly dull as well. A missed opportunity, and ripe for a reboot, but whoever owns the system now has long forgotten about it...
IIRC with Blood of Heroes there was some sort of legal limbo involved where DC insisted that their deal with the original designer gave
them ownership of the MEGS game system itself, so that he couldn't legally license it out to Pulsar. Definitely a pity.
I like the crappy, goofy art in rpgs. I recognize it as stupid, and probably would not try to organize a gallery showing or a coffee table book of it. But when I can look at my Trapper or PeeChee folder (PeeChees were the best) and the art there looks like the art in a rpg, then it's even more tacit approval for the diy approach I've always loved about the games.
That said, I love the beautiful, evocative art you see in some games. Art it would be hard to find a home for, otherwise.
Cyberpunk 3 made an interesting art choice that I got a kick out of, but is pretty generally reviled by fans of the old game. It's mostly portarait photography of custom GIJoes.
Quote from: stu2000;458800I like the crappy, goofy art in rpgs. I recognize it as stupid, and probably would not try to organize a gallery showing or a coffee table book of it. But when I can look at my Trapper or PeeChee folder (PeeChees were the best) and the art there looks like the art in a rpg, then it's even more tacit approval for the diy approach I've always loved about the games.
This definitely speaks to my feelings about it...
Quote from: Exploderwizard;458609The value of art is subjective. Why label stuff you don't like as incompetent?
There's lots of stuff that I don't like which I can still recognize as being competent or even of high quality.
And then there is simple incompetence.
Mistaking the two seems to be a common problem in the post-modern world because "Picasso's anatomy isn't perfect" or whatever. But Picasso had the skill to execute on the canvas exactly what he wanted to paint. This is not the same as someone who is merely incompetent.
And it's generally not that hard to tell the two apart. Those pretending otherwise in this thread are either (a) blind, (b) incompetent, or (c) disingenuous.
Quote from: J Arcane;458730I think I've found a new worst game art nominee: Eoris.
People were glowing about this game in the other thread, which just proves to me, along with the defense of some of the worst of D&D art, how utterly terrible the local taste here is.
This stuff is shit. It is exactly the kind of awful, tacky, overly glowy, cliched, mostly half-photoshopped Poser model shit I see for sale in mall painting shops. (...) Now all it needs is two more of those and a moon, and you could put it on a T-shirt.
Oh. My. God. It looks like a manual to a set of fucking New Age divinatory cards... Truly terrible. The whole game sounds pretty pointless and pretentious to me and the *cough* artwork *cough* only enhances that impression.
Quote from: HombreLoboDomesticado;458852Oh. My. God. It looks like a manual to a set of fucking New Age divinatory cards... Truly terrible. The whole game sounds pretty pointless and pretentious to me and the *cough* artwork *cough* only enhances that impression.
Meh. It's cheesy, but not the utter crap of say, The Foundation.
Liefeld looks like the successful incorporation of West African aesthetics, which shaped Picasso's exploration into Cubism, into comic book design. If you throw out Western European presupposed expectations of realism and perspective, it's a pretty impressive re-visualizing of such aesthetics. Focus on the power, that becomes enlarged or remains forefront to the viewer; diminish focus on the extraneous details, that becomes smaller or alters to the needs of the power around. Granted, I doubt he did any of this consciously, which does detract from the genius of such a marriage of aesthetic tropes.
But if T&A of vengeance, bulging biceps, BIG guns, admiring the flat of swords, and thighs that can crush walnuts are crucial to your visual expressions of power, what consequence are details, like feet, digits, waists, etc? Believability is a cute answer, but come on, even by the mid 1800s with photography people realized the endless pursuit of realistic perspective in art was merely a distraction. Art is now free from such status quo restrictions, and so are we. Especially in something so culturally marginalized (in our culture) as comic books. Enjoy the post-modern madness. :)
I wonder how much West African aesthetics has subconsciously seeped into modern Western civilization? Liefeld definitely makes a modern argument for it in comics. I wonder how much of hip hop leaked into his style: Bua, graffiti, Basquiat... Too bad he probably did it unconsciously or by complete accident, leading to a lot of pop-psych armchair diagnosis.
Or perhaps it's all just evil, badwrongfun and I should lay off the snack 'shrooms.
:teehee:
Quote from: Opaopajr;458861Or perhaps it's all just evil, badwrongfun and I should lay off the snack 'shrooms.
:teehee:
I call Ockham's razor and humbly submit that you should absolutely lay off the shrooms.
I very much doubt Liefeld is cultured enough to have been influenced by this stuff. I've read an interview with him and his manic, overreaching enthusiasm and delusions of grandeur make Kevin Siembieda or Raven McCracken look positively sane by comparison.
Quote from: J Arcane;458730I think I've found a new worst game art nominee: Eoris
... Please do go on. It's like a 300 page book, and there's art on every page.
(http://i55.tinypic.com/acamf5.gif)
There we have the same character (the Enchantress) drawn by Alan Davis (left) and Rob Liefield (right). Head and body size similar (ok, on the left she has a waist. On the right, none). Legs? Oh dear.
Clearly the enchantress has used her magic powers to turn into some kind of crazy weird stilt person. I acknowledge that comic book artists draw unrealistic characters that only people hitting the gym 3 times a day could get close to emulating, but we read comics to get away from real life. Superman would have a gut over his belt, saggy man tits and sweat stains on his blue costume if realism was the goal (for an example of this go to any comic book convention).
That said, there's the imagined 'ideal' body shape most artists draw, and then there is the... well, it's shit isn't it? (I am referring to crazy stilt woman with leg warmers, too much fake tan and the waist. Well, I assume there's a waist there. The belt buckle more or less covers the width of it.)
It looks like Liefield stretched the lower half of the picture. And he gets paid to do that as a professional artist. Makes you wonder if he had some pictures of the editor in chief in a compromising position to get stuff like this into print. I'm not an expert on Liefield art, and up till a day or two ago I didn't know a lot about his work.
Now I know enough to avoid it.
Wow, it's like he enjoys wasp women. I'm guessing that character's long legs reference how powerful her legs are. However, aren't those dimensions closer to modern Barbie, than say 50 years ago Barbie? Perhaps Liefeld played with Barbies?! (<-- look, double punctuation, screaming question.) And how does this relate to Nicole Kidman's bizarre decade's long transformation of life imitating art, turning into a vamped up Queen Bee?
(I think the munch'ems are kicking in nicely, meself.) :D
Picasso, when he wanted to, could draw and paint in the naturalistic style. He took his knowledge of anatomy and perspective and lighting and turned them inside out to produce fascinating artistic results.
Rob Liefeld lacks basic artistic skills. Forget about the giant legs for a second and look at the lighting on that wasp woman. It's clear Liefeld has no idea where the light is coming from, since no collection of lights could actually produce that effect.
I doubt he did the colors, really; however, is someone arguing that he doesn't suck?
Quote from: Aos;458894I doubt he did the colors, really; however, is someone arguing that he doesn't suck?
Did someone tell this guy she is supposed to be part giraffe as a joke?
Quote from: J Arcane;458730I think I've found a new worst game art nominee: Eoris...Look at this shit...
Looks like fan-art from somebody's
Blue Rose campaign.
Quote from: APN;458871(http://i55.tinypic.com/acamf5.gif)
There we have the same character (the Enchantress) drawn by Alan Davis (left) and Rob Liefield (right). Head and body size similar (ok, on the left she has a waist. On the right, none). Legs? Oh dear.
Clearly the enchantress has used her magic powers to turn into some kind of crazy weird stilt person. I acknowledge that comic book artists draw unrealistic characters that only people hitting the gym 3 times a day could get close to emulating, but we read comics to get away from real life. Superman would have a gut over his belt, saggy man tits and sweat stains on his blue costume if realism was the goal (for an example of this go to any comic book convention).
That said, there's the imagined 'ideal' body shape most artists draw, and then there is the... well, it's shit isn't it? (I am referring to crazy stilt woman with leg warmers, too much fake tan and the waist. Well, I assume there's a waist there. The belt buckle more or less covers the width of it.)
It looks like Liefield stretched the lower half of the picture. And he gets paid to do that as a professional artist. Makes you wonder if he had some pictures of the editor in chief in a compromising position to get stuff like this into print. I'm not an expert on Liefield art, and up till a day or two ago I didn't know a lot about his work.
Now I know enough to avoid it.
Darn it I am goign to have to defend him now ... shcuks ..
Well I am fairly certain that he has taken an oversylaised approach and could draw a natuaristic rendition f he wanted to. Take Bill Sienkiewicz he can draw pictures that look like this -
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/Elektra-Assassin.jpg/250px-Elektra-Assassin.jpg)
but he often chooses to draw stuff that looks like this
(http://www.titanstower.com/assets/gallery/professionals/nwingSienkiewicz.jpg)
It doesn't mean that he thinkgs Nightwing has a 2 foot long neck its jsut sylised (and needless to say all excellent)
Likewise whilst Liefield chooses to draw women that look like anorexic giraffes that have been to Rio for a cheap boob job doesn't mean he lacks talent
(http://robliefeldcreations.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/CDP6)
That has some good movement and is well executed.
Technical competancy should distinguished from style.
I totally get people don't like certain syles and Liefield isn't my style but he is techncially competent (though he can't draw faces very well if you look at most of his stuff) this is different from some of the other offerings we have seen who are techncialy incompetent.
Have you guys ever seen the forearms on Popeye? They're bigger than his head! 111111!!!!!!!!!
And what Jibba said.
Really, if you guys want to see some shit art, take a look at second tier artists at DC and Marvel in the late 70's and early 80's.
Mike Sekowsky's work makes me cringe, for example. It has all the simplicty of Kirby, but none of the punch. That's my opinion, though there are almost certainly some folks that dig it.
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/sekowsky3banner.gif)
Deadpool's head must be translucent, because otherwise I don't know how his right knee is lit.
Quote from: jibbajibba;458953Likewise whilst Liefield chooses to draw women that look like anorexic giraffes that have been to Rio for a cheap boob job doesn't mean he lacks talent
(http://robliefeldcreations.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/CDP6)
That has some good movement and is well executed.
Technical competancy should distinguished from style.
I totally get people don't like certain syles and Liefield isn't my style but he is techncially competent (though he can't draw faces very well if you look at most of his stuff) this is different from some of the other offerings we have seen who are techncialy incompetent.
OK, I'll admit it. Capprotti is technically competent.
Quote from: TAFMSV;459017OK, I'll admit it. Capprotti is technically competent.
Exactly. When Leifeld's garbage doesn't look like total shit is when he's helped a ton by a solid inker. His early work on Hawk and Dove is indicative of this.
And Aos speaks true, as well. Artists rarely (if ever) do their own colors. So light-source mistakes can usually be pinned on them.
In either case, Leifeld sucks balls. Pure and simple.
I know I already posted this, but i can't stop looking at it. Is it just me or do they all look like they're wearing adult diapers?
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/sekowsky3banner.gif)
"Depends, because sometimes when you're saving the universe, you don't have time to take a comfortable shit."
Quote from: Kaz;459039Exactly. When Leifeld's garbage doesn't look like total shit is when he's helped a ton by a solid inker. His early work on Hawk and Dove is indicative of this.
And Aos speaks true, as well. Artists rarely (if ever) do their own colors. So light-source mistakes can usually be pinned on them.
In either case, Leifeld sucks balls. Pure and simple.
Most pencil artists give the inkers some some indication of darkened areas though, and liefeld's weird shadow distributions are often his. Though a misplaced color highlight like above may originate with the colorist admittedly.
The problem with liefeld isn't how stylized he is. There are many artists with a superficially similar style who don't show the same kind of terrible composition flaws as he does.
Certainly there have been lousy artists since comics began - that piece Aos showed, not good, and not really "stylized" either - it's sort of Curt Swan's style done really really badly I suppose. Liefeld does get extra demerits, I think, for many people because he is particularly bad
relative to his fame and money He is also especially bad at conveying what the hell is going on in the action, especially bad for comics.
Quote from: Cole;459046Most pencil artists give the inkers some some indication of darkened areas though, and liefeld's weird shadow distributions are often his. Though a misplaced color highlight like above may originate with the colorist admittedly.
The problem with liefeld isn't how stylized he is. There are many artists with a superficially similar style who don't show the same kind of terrible composition flaws as he does.
Certainly there have been lousy artists since comics began - that piece Aos showed, not good, and not really "stylized" either - it's sort of Curt Swan's style done really really badly I suppose. Liefeld does get extra demerits, I think, for many people because he is particularly bad relative to his fame and money He is also especially bad at conveying what the hell is going on in the action, especially bad for comics.
I agree completely; the last point is however, worthy of further discussion. I guess my point would be that nobody forced anyone to buy the guy's comics. Fuck. my drawings suck, but if I had the opportunity to get rich off them, I'd wouldn't think twice or feel even an instant of regret.
For example, lighting :
(http://i.imgur.com/olaEe.jpg)]
Face of the guy in the suit. Colorist didn't do that one for him.
Take these two figures. This is not stylization. He just has a lot of trouble with figure drawing. There are a small selection of stock poses (like that back-arched looking at the camera thing that Enchantress, or the first girl posted) that he can do with some kind of consistency, but mostly it's a crap shoot as to whether he can draw a person on a given day and if he can't, he just can't and cashes the paycheck off of this:
(http://i.imgur.com/sRxHM.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dKMe9.jpg)
Quote from: Aos;459045(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/sekowsky3banner.gif)
"Depends, because sometimes when you're saving the universe, you don't have time to take a comfortable shit."
That picture makes me wonder if the JLA have seen a 'half price cheeseburgers' sign at McDonalds and are wanting to go back for seconds. It's clearly not realistic otherwise there would have been a load of sweat dripping from their fat bodies...
Green Lantern and Arrow are having the hardest time keeping up I think, and Wonder Woman is hoping the elastic in her Granny pants doesn't snap.
Quote from: Aos;459048I agree completely; the last point is however, worthy of further discussion. I guess my point would be that nobody forced anyone to buy the guy's comics. Fuck. my drawings suck, but if I had the opportunity to get rich off them, I'd wouldn't think twice or feel even an instant of regret.
You're right but man it's almost like a herd immunity thing. Hiring Rob Liefeld is like the illustration equivalent of not vaccinating your kids.
Quote from: APN;459051That picture makes me wonder if the JLA have seen a 'half price cheeseburgers' sign at McDonalds and are wanting to go back for seconds. It's clearly not realistic otherwise there would have been a load of sweat dripping from their fat bodies...
Green Lantern and Arrow are having the hardest time keeping up I think, and Wonder Woman is hoping the elastic in her Granny pants doesn't snap.
Notice that they're all in front of WW, it's because she proposed a gang bang and they're running away. Judging by the facial expression, Flash is about .2 seconds from going into a cardiac arrest, either that or he's filling his pants.
Quote from: Aos;459045"Depends, because sometimes when you're saving the universe, you don't have time to take a comfortable shit."
How else do you think Batman takes care of business on those 16 hour patrols?
The military does it, why not superheroes?
Quote from: Cole;459050Take these two figures. This is not stylization. He just has a lot of trouble with figure drawing. There are a small selection of stock poses (like that back-arched looking at the camera thing that Enchantress, or the first girl posted) that he can do with some kind of consistency, but mostly it's a crap shoot as to whether he can draw a person on a given day and if he can't, he just can't and cashes the paycheck off of this:
Snip
One wonders why he just didn't use a bit more swipe. Fuck, even I can swipe Joe Madureira pretty much line for line (it's good practice actually).
Quote from: Aos;459060One wonders why he just didn't use a bit more swipe. Fuck, even I can swipe Joe Madureira pretty much line for line (it's good practice actually).
The "good practice" thing is probably your answer - i.e. he's probably too lazy even to swipe.
Then again, oooodles and ooodles of money may have provided him with a false sense of adequacy.
Quote from: Aos;459045I know I already posted this, but i can't stop looking at it. Is it just me or do they all look like they're wearing adult diapers?
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/sekowsky3banner.gif)
"Depends, because sometimes when you're saving the universe, you don't have time to take a comfortable shit."
Quote from: APN;459051That picture makes me wonder if the JLA have seen a 'half price cheeseburgers' sign at McDonalds and are wanting to go back for seconds. It's clearly not realistic otherwise there would have been a load of sweat dripping from their fat bodies...
Green Lantern and Arrow are having the hardest time keeping up I think, and Wonder Woman is hoping the elastic in her Granny pants doesn't snap.
Quote from: Aos;459056Notice that they're all in front of WW, it's because she proposed a gang bang and they're running away. Judging by the facial expression, Flash is about .2 seconds from going into a cardiac arrest, either that or he's filling his pants.
:rotfl:
I'm told Liefield gets work because he's the only artist in comics that actually gets his work in on time.
Quote from: David Johansen;459156I'm told Liefield gets work because he's the only artist in comics that actually gets his work in on time.
I don't know anything about Liefeld's career but I've been told that the key thing employers care about with artists and freelancers is if they actually do the work when they're supposed to. A first step to get up in the business is to fulfill all aspects of everything you've agreed to. There are tons of wannabes who dither around. Look at webcomics where a small number can crank it out daily but there are thousands who can't keep a schedule and who are taking constant hiatuses.
In comics, half-assed work probably causes a 5% drop in sales. Not having any work = no sales.
(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/sekowsky3banner.gif)
Christ, now I can't stop looking at it.
Wait a minute, why is Green Arrow wearing hospital scrubs and a paper fry hat? This isn't the Justice League. These are escaped mental patients. "Superman" just hurled a washing machine through the window and they're making a break for it.
And the one guy isn't Ant-Man, he's just really fucking slow.
Quote from: Cole;458717Instructive article : The 40 Worst Rob Liefeld Drawings (http://www.progressiveboink.com/archive/robliefeld.html)
This is the funniest fucking thing I've seen in ages. Is this guy still working in the comics industry?
Quote from: Insufficient Metal;459213(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/sekowsky3banner.gif)
Christ, now I can't stop looking at it.
Yea, it's amazingly bad. Superman's proportions are the worst - body too thick, legs too short, oddly placed head.
They don't look like they're trying hard to run, especially green arrow who is obviously putting in a token effort. None of them have heroic expressions, like happy or angry, just bored and resigned.
I think it might be cosplay day at a high school and they're all running laps in gymn class.
Quote from: Insufficient Metal;459213(http://i1139.photobucket.com/albums/n552/Junkyinthethrunky/sekowsky3banner.gif)
Christ, now I can't stop looking at it.
Wait a minute, why is Green Arrow wearing hospital scrubs and a paper fry hat? This isn't the Justice League. These are escaped mental patients. "Superman" just hurled a washing machine through the window and they're making a break for it.
And the one guy isn't Ant-Man, he's just really fucking slow.
Ok, I just cracked up there :rotfl: I imagine the slow, not-Ant-Man, hero with a Monty Python-esque high pitched scream "
wait for meeeee".
Quote from: Nicephorus;459273Yea, it's amazingly bad. Superman's proportions are the worst - body too thick, legs too short, oddly placed head.
They don't look like they're trying hard to run, especially green arrow who is obviously putting in a token effort. None of them have heroic expressions, like happy or angry, just bored and resigned.
I think it might be cosplay day at a high school and they're all running laps in gymn class.
Its still not as bad as that !/2 orc in the PHB though :) and its not even close to a mondron :)
Quote from: danbuter;458732Out of the hundreds of images in the 1e PHB, DMG, and MM, there are probably 25 good pictures. The rest look like High School doodles.
truth. i love 1e but the there is a ton of shit art in those books. in fact, i would go as far as to say that the pieces benoist posted earlier are the *only* truly good pieces in that trio of books.
Oh come on the Justice League shot was an eighth of a page at the bottom (I actually have that collection) The artist flubed his attempt at a dynamic hyperextension by having them all running directly towards the viewer which is something best attempted by a guy like Liefield who just ignores perspective and gives them giant heads and arms on shoulders.
Quote from: David Johansen;459156I'm told Liefield gets work because he's the only artist in comics that actually gets his work in on time.
I recommend you check out the comic Atomic Robo and the artist Scott Wegener. Good art and on time.
http://www.atomic-robo.com/
There are artists whose styles I do not like, but I think that the worst art in an RPG book is that which either shows no enthusiasm, or that which fails to give an impression of the game world.
Quote from: Cranewings;458544In my opinion, art expresses something that the artist feels. If it isn't doing that, its just a picture. Most of this stuff are just pictures.
Even though a lot of the 1e art was weak technically, I feel like the artist is really trying to give you a sense of something special.
On the other hand, a lot of the later art, especially from the books, don't really convey much other than, "here is a picture of what the book says." I look at it and think, "I know that's what it looks like. I can read." Portraits aren't really art.
Yes.
I have no real intentions of defending Liefeld. To me, his work looks like he was not classically trained, and ended up being an amateur who got picked up as a professional because of consistency, or tenacity, or something or other. Looking back through this topic, I think my suspicions are right, if his punctuality truly was what made him a publisher favorite.
But I will give him two things. One, he hit the zeitgeist of the 90s; Death Tits and the like was all about 90s T&A with angst, the late 80s, early 90s surfer and feathered haircuts were just lingering manifestations of how dated he is. Two, he unconsciously tapped into another cultural aesthetic and incorporated it into some pop culture cache. We probably will have more conscious embracing of such aesthetics, which could only improve in an educated professional's hand.
Well, I'll give him a third thing. Even though he gave his characters crotch speed lines (honestly? is there forthcoming 'action'?), at least they weren't dressed in dollar store Halloween costumes with adult diapers. Basically, yeah, he's a hack with limited tricks up his sleeve, but even his baseline shit is better than... other things out there. :eek: Worst is a hard title to live down to, and I think the competition is far fiercer than given credit.
Quote from: Opaopajr;459528Worst is a hard title to live down to, and I think the competition is far fiercer than given credit.
That was pretty much my point.
Quote from: Opaopajr;459528I have no real intentions of defending Liefeld. To me, his work looks like he was not classically trained, and ended up being an amateur who got picked up as a professional because of consistency, or tenacity, or something or other. Looking back through this topic, I think my suspicions are right, if his punctuality truly was what made him a publisher favorite.
But I will give him two things. One, he hit the zeitgeist of the 90s; Death Tits and the like was all about 90s T&A with angst, the late 80s, early 90s surfer and feathered haircuts were just lingering manifestations of how dated he is. Two, he unconsciously tapped into another cultural aesthetic and incorporated it into some pop culture cache. We probably will have more conscious embracing of such aesthetics, which could only improve in an educated professional's hand.
Well, I'll give him a third thing. Even though he gave his characters crotch speed lines (honestly? is there forthcoming 'action'?), at least they weren't dressed in dollar store Halloween costumes with adult diapers. Basically, yeah, he's a hack with limited tricks up his sleeve, but even his baseline shit is better than... other things out there. :eek: Worst is a hard title to live down to, and I think the competition is far fiercer than given credit.
I would totally agree that he is in a big pot of average comic artists. Is he Travis Charest or Alex Ross or Brian Bolland, no but he isn't the bottom of the barrel by any means.
If your measure of worst includes some perceived question of fame/pay versus talent if you like the "Vettriano Index" (fine art critics loves to hate Vettriano, calling him commercial, crass, uninspired, incipid etc etc but his picture the Singing Butler sold for £0.75M and his posters sell thousands of copies) then maybe Liefield gets on the list. However you have to ask how much of that is just the typical nerdish dislike of popular opinion in favour of some elistist alternative. You know the guys that like the Beatles but only the early stuff Lenon wrote when he was stil at school .....
Quote from: jibbajibba;459535You know the guys that like the Beatles but only the early stuff Lenon wrote when he was stil at school .....
I like them from start to finish (not so much some of the McCartney songs) but I have friends who give me a really hard time about liking "Love Me Do" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand."
Quote from: Aos;459538I like them from start to finish (not so much some of the McCartney songs) but I have friends who give me a really hard time about liking "Love Me Do" and "I Want to Hold Your Hand."
Yeah but I really love the Ringo stuff :)
Easily the most talented of the Beatles.
[...]
At picking a wife.
Some pretty lousy stuff from Chaosium's Atlas of the Young Kingdoms:
(http://i.imgur.com/DHtBh.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/Cy2rZ.gif)
(http://i.imgur.com/El6oy.gif)
Money shot of the Cyber-Horseman of Ixion (or as I like to call him, the Cyber-Hoseman of Ixion) from the Rifts Conversion Book.
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/horsemanofixion.jpg)
This reminds me, the Buck Rogers XXVc. game had some really fantastically bad internal art on par with anything in High Fantasy or Fantasy Wargaming (either of em). The covers were brilliant and awesome but the interior art was often terrible. I'm thinking the Storm Riders and Delphs in particular though the Low Lander wasn't great either.
The lowlander is the worst of the lot. I like the Wold Book cover, but the others leave me cold. Most of the interior art falls squarely in the the unremarkable category.
Quote from: Cole;459596Some pretty lousy stuff from Chaosium's Atlas of the Young Kingdoms:
I don't really see anything wrong with those.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;459662I don't really see anything wrong with those.
Well, art's a matter of taste. I suppose it is not bad in a
comical way but in my opinion the technical execution is awkward and halfassed
and it's also bland. When I first got this book (shrinkwrapped) I was really taken aback by it, I was used to what I thought of as strong and flavorful artwork in the stormbringer/elric books and the impression stayed with me over the years.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;459662I don't really see anything wrong with those.
Ditto. They don't get my blood stirring or anything, but the artist has a solid grasp of anatomy. The depth in his compositions is actually kind of refreshing given the "everybody standing in a line" pin-ups that a lot of fantasy stuff is getting inundated with these days.
If I was their art director, I don't think I'd necessarily pay money for it.* But it's decent, competent work.
* I'm of the "I'd rather buy half as many pieces and pay twice as much for each of them" school.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;459647Money shot of the Cyber-Horseman of Ixion (or as I like to call him, the Cyber-Hoseman of Ixion) from the Rifts Conversion Book.
I looked at that picture about nine times before I saw the robotic horse cock. WTF?
Quote from: Cole;459663Well, art's a matter of taste. I suppose it is not bad in a comical way but in my opinion the technical execution is awkward and halfassed and it's also bland. When I first got this book (shrinkwrapped) I was really taken aback by it, I was used to what I thought of as strong and flavorful artwork in the stormbringer/elric books and the impression stayed with me over the years.
It does strike me as terribly bland. What is the point of illustration if not to add some flavor? Complaints can be made that too many RPG illos are of battles and what not, but I'd rather look at a million cool fight scenes than one semi competent illo of a fat guy nursing his 'roids on the seat of a wagon.
[mako voice, drum beat] Let me tell you of the days of high adventure! Piles were bane of the young kingdoms; my master was crippled by them, and fought each rut in the raod and the hard wood of the wagon seat- in the time of legends! [/mako voice drum beat].
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;459647(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/horsemanofixion.jpg)
See, just to illustrate the point that the quality and value of art truly lies in the eye of the beholder further, that is awesome to me.
Quote from: Aos;459666It does strike me as terribly bland. What is the point of illustration if not to add some flavor? Complaints can be made that too many RPG illos are of battles and what not, but I'd rather look at a million cool fight scenes than one semi competent illo of a fat guy nursing his 'roids on the seat of a wagon.
[mako voice, drum beat] Let me tell you of the days of high adventure! Piles were bane of the young kingdoms; my master was crippled by them, and fought each rut in the raod and the hard wood of the wagon seat- in the time of legends! [/mako voice drum beat].
I wanted to make a comment about how the second artist after diterlizzi in the 2e monster manual was just horrid, but revisiting it it's merely mediocre. But since I'd hate to disappoint Aos, here's a decently executed sample from that book, wherein two dinosaurs are fucking.
(http://dedpihto.narod.ru/games/Monsters1/dinos.gif)
Quote from: Benoist;459668See, just to illustrate the point that the quality and value of art truly lies in the eye of the beholder further, that is awesome to me.
He cleans his ass by angling the jet pack.
Quote from: Aos;459672He cleans his ass by angling the jet pack.
Who gives a shit? Besides, who's to know in which exact position a fucking centaur actually flies with a fucking jetpack on its back?
Quote from: Benoist;459673Who gives a shit? Besides, who's to know in which exact position a fucking centaur actually flies with a fucking jetpack on its back?
Whichever way optimizes strafing with his penis laser.
Quote from: Benoist;459673Who gives a shit? Besides, who's to know in which exact position a fucking centaur actually flies with a fucking jetpack on its back?
I'm envisioning something where he leads with his giant robo-horsey-cock.
I need to type faster.
Too sloooww... :D
The centaur guy is competently done. He just looks very Rifty to me - awesome stupid that really speaks to the backward 10 year old part of people's minds. In that sense, the art is effective as it's communicating Rift's style.
Quote from: Nicephorus;459681The centaur guy is competently done. He just looks very Rifty to me - awesome stupid that really speaks to the backward 10 year old part of people's minds. In that sense, the art is effective as it's communicating Rift's style.
The only thing that really puts it into WTF territory is the weird penis laser. It's made even worse because it looks like the abdomen portion of the centaur is organic. "Oh, and chop that right on off, that's a good laser mount."
Quote from: Windjammer;458327Cheesecake? Their art just targeted gamers' loins (http://rpgshared.blogspot.com/2010_05_01_archive.html), 's all!
the 15 year old boy inside me (whoa! that didn't sound right!) is intrigued.
However, the 30 year old man in me (why the fuck do I keep saying that?) is questioning the quality of the product if the covers need to look like that.
Quote from: Cole;459682The only thing that really puts it into WTF territory is the weird penis laser. It's made even worse because it looks like the abdomen portion of the centaur is organic. "Oh, and chop that right on off, that's a good laser mount."
That's something I did not even notice at first glance, and now that you pointed it out, I still don't care about it.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;459662I don't really see anything wrong with those.
Same here. Kinda cartoonish, but just fine for interior illustrations.
Quote from: Benoist;459684That's something I did not even notice at first glance, and now that you pointed it out, I still don't care about it.
I halfway wonder if originally the centaur was anatomically correct, it didn't pass KS approval, but the gun mount did.
Quote from: Aos;459666It does strike me as terribly bland. What is the point of illustration if not to add some flavor? Complaints can be made that too many RPG illos are of battles and what not, but I'd rather look at a million cool fight scenes than
Let me guess, you like to watch
300 in a darkened room with your pants around your ankles, right?
Quoteone semi competent illo of a fat guy nursing his 'roids on the seat of a wagon.
Even if the fat guy in the wagon is important in the text?
And you keep throwing around the word "competent". It doesn't mean what
you think it means.
By the way, did I mention that you have shitty taste in art?
Quote from: everloss;459683the 15 year old boy inside me (whoa! that didn't sound right!) is intrigued.
However, the 30 year old man in me (why the fuck do I keep saying that?) is questioning the quality of the product if the covers need to look like that.
I want to spend a sleazy and apocalyptic weekend with Ragnarok and the Twilight of Atlantis.
Quote from: Elfdart;459689Let me guess, you like to watch 300 in a darkened room with your pants around your ankles, right?
I usually wear them on my head; that's normal right?
I guess it's not so bad after all, if art is to inspire, and this 15 year old deadline-filler spot illustration of two strangely-proportioned fat merchants sitting on a cart has inspired such an epic battle.
Spartaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Quote from: Cole;459687I halfway wonder if originally the centaur was anatomically correct, it didn't pass KS approval, but the gun mount did.
Knowing Kevin Siembieda's™ © ® reputation, I would say that is totally possible.
Quote from: Aos;459690I want to spend a sleazy and apocalyptic weekend with Ragnarok and the Twilight of Atlantis.
Well, it looks like it's going to be this weekend! (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13468131).
Quote from: Aos;459672He cleans his ass by angling the jet pack.
Huh. Never even noticed that before.
Quote from: Aos;459666It does strike me as terribly bland. What is the point of illustration if not to add some flavor? Complaints can be made that too many RPG illos are of battles and what not, but I'd rather look at a million cool fight scenes than one semi competent illo of a fat guy nursing his 'roids on the seat of a wagon.
It's basically in the mid-late-80's anthro-tourism mode, a mode I like. The third illustration is the least flavorful, fer sure, but at least it's not a full page.
EDIT: But those are funny comments.
Quote from: jibbajibba;458318So this
(http://tohs.webs.com/Death%20of%20Sturm%20-%20Larry%20Elmore.jpg)
I'd just like to thank this picture for finally giving me the impetus to use my google-fu to recall the names of 2nd-tier TV-actress sisters Audrey and Judy Landers.
I think Audrey may have been what Elmore was going for.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;459708I'd just like to thank this picture for finally giving me the impetus to use my google-fu to recall the names of 2nd-tier TV-actress sisters Audrey and Judy Landers.
I think Audrey may have been what Elmore was going for.
I actually really, really like this picture. That was about the time in the books when she was turning into something and elm ore got it.
I'm an Elmore hater and although I still don't think it's great, it's not bad. Mind you, I don't know the Dragonlance story. Still, the "strike a pose" is effective here, a sort of exclamation point on the just-completed action. Use of perspective is nice, reminiscent of Manet's The Dead Toreador. The female face is like many of Elmore's, amateurish and overdone at the same time, and there's something weird about her left hand. Ordinarily roughness wouldn't bother me but in a painting that looks "meticulous", little awkward bits stand out.
While we are on the subject of horrible art, check out this microblog about late 70s to late 90s Hungarian fantasy art (http://paperdungeon.tumblr.com/). It burrrrrrns!
Samples:
Spectrum World, ca. 1988 (Bard's Tale?)
(http://paperdungeon.tumblr.com/photo/1280/5065368465/1/tumblr_lkgix4KF9O1qbtj0j)
Ca. 1995, from the cover of Purple Moon, a fantasy and gaming magazine - note the coin they left on the crotch of the fighter guy when they scanned the artwork. Yes, it was published that way.
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkogikQvUk1qbtj0jo1_500.jpg)
Illustration from Rune, another gaming magazine, late 90s
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lktlnwdwFo1qbtj0jo1_500.jpg)
No comment required (early 80s?):
(http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lg5qm9s2UM1qbtj0jo1_500.jpg)
Oh my. Melan's top selection is a winner!
The Synnibarr books have some extraordinary art.
I love how this guy is waiting for the action to start. How long has he been in position, I wonder? Long enough to line all of his ammo up, biggest to smallest. At least he's got cover behind that log.
(http://i.imgur.com/Zpro1.jpg)
Portrait of the author as a Bio-Syntha Cyborg, with Liefeld pouches:
(http://i.imgur.com/zqvRn.jpg)
He really needs a longer scabbard strap. If he flexes any harder, that wire is going to cut his face. Also, I'd like to see him draw that pistol he has on his right hip.
Sorry these images are so immense. If it's a problem, I'll see what I can do to fix it.
On the subject of Larry Elmore, check out this shot from the film Centurion. All she needs is bigger hair.
(http://teleport-city.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/centurion00.jpg)
Quote from: Melan;459720(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lktlnwdwFo1qbtj0jo1_500.jpg)
This looks like it might be copied from Russ Nicholson, but has less of his distinctive detail.
Quote from: jibbajibba;459535fine art critics loves to hate Vettriano, calling him commercial, crass, uninspired, incipid etc etc but his picture the Singing Butler sold for £0.75M and his posters sell thousands of copies
As a side-point, in an article I read about Jack Vettriano the main criticism levelled at him by artists was that he based his figures on pictures from an art book, rather than using live models. It wasn't plagiarism, the book was designed for that purpose. Their criticism was that real artists use live models. His defence was that he couldn't afford to hire a live model. All in all, it sounded like a bunch of rich kids who didn't want someone from a poor background to be a successful artist, but didn't want to say that.
Quote from: jibbajibba;458313(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iEoNUB1KJgU/TaZQ1kD5jlI/AAAAAAAABGY/A9VvkPAu9u8/s1600/conan-the-barbarian-9d0c6d3f9429922c.jpg)
I find this picture interesting because it looks like 3rd edition art to me, except his axe and the horns on his helmet are comically small: that is, a realistic size.
This, on the other hand, is excellent RPG art. It tells you everything you need to know about the game.
(http://www.jasonrhart.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/fatal.jpg)
Quote from: The Butcher;458335What, 4 pages in and no mention of MRQII?
(http://i.imgur.com/Hu47h.png)
I'll get that bitch a phylactery. Bitches love phylacteries.
I know I'm coming late to the party, but here's Walder Frey honeymooning in Egypt....
Quote from: Age of Fable;459737This, on the other hand, is excellent RPG art. It tells you everything you need to know about the game.
Hell yes, AVOID AT ALL COSTS.
I actually find that picture of the old guy on the Egyptian throne apropos in context, since it's in the middle of the description of the Divine Magic spell "Aphrodisiac". Artistically, it's terrible, of course.
Quote from: Age of Fable;459735As a side-point, in an article I read about Jack Vettriano the main criticism levelled at him by artists was that he based his figures on pictures from an art book, rather than using live models. It wasn't plagiarism, the book was designed for that purpose. Their criticism was that real artists use live models. His defence was that he couldn't afford to hire a live model. All in all, it sounded like a bunch of rich kids who didn't want someone from a poor background to be a successful artist, but didn't want to say that.
On the other hand, in the case of Rob Liefeld, he quickly became richer than Croesus and his work only got worse and worse. Also given the punctuality argument, maybe that's how he gets work
today but the apex of his popularity he was as notoriously late as anyone. Maybe he spent most of the 90's money.
Quote from: Age of Fable;459736I find this picture interesting because it looks like 3rd edition art to me, except his axe and the horns on his helmet are comically small: that is, a realistic size.
I don't really see the likeness. I don't roundly object to 3rd edition art either, mind you. There were good pieces and bad.
I don't hate those Hungarian pieces, and I actually like the last two. Not sure what the fourth one is of, maybe that would help.
The first one is bland and amateurish and borderline folknik/renfaire (the romance of...sittin' in a tavern) but there's something about the weird perspective that pulls me in.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;459764I don't hate those Hungarian pieces, and I actually like the last two. Not sure what the fourth one is of, maybe that would help.
Star Wars.
Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;459746I actually find that picture of the old guy on the Egyptian throne apropos in context, since it's in the middle of the description of the Divine Magic spell "Aphrodisiac". Artistically, it's terrible, of course.
And this is why I take exception with "it's OK as long as it illustrates the text appropriately." Aphrodisiac is one goddamn spell that didn't need an illo.
Technically, it's bad, but not even half as bad as Skybolt.
Quote from: Cole;459765Star Wars.
Yeah, on my iPod I could see there were SW elements but I wasn't sure if there weren't other things mixed in. I still like it; maybe my opinion would change if I saw it on a bigger screen.
Quote from: Cole;459682The only thing that really puts it into WTF territory is the weird penis laser. It's made even worse because it looks like the abdomen portion of the centaur is organic. "Oh, and chop that right on off, that's a good laser mount."
You know, I must have looked at that image a thousand times over the years using the RIFTS conversion book, and I never once noticed it was a "Money shot" until now. I can only assume my brain didn't want to notice it.
RPGPundit
In his defense, you know guys as much as Sutherland was a little (or a lotta) off he still was entertaining authenticity way more than all D&D to come. Thats why you're still having this "discussion" as its still too good to ignore. I'll admit I detested his cheapness long ago but the notion behind them is more important because we haven't seen a notion of its kind ever again.
I rather liked Sutherland's sketches in the margins of the DMG (pp 170-173), as well as a picture from G1 of a giant hanging his cloak on the wall.
I'm not going to pretend most of Sutherland's work wasn't amateurish, but (a) he WAS an amateur and (b) he was asked to draw simple sketches, not artistic masterpieces. So bitching about his level of talent is both stupid and pointless.
Quote from: Melan;459720While we are on the subject of horrible art, check out this microblog about late 70s to late 90s Hungarian fantasy art (http://paperdungeon.tumblr.com/). It burrrrrrns!
Most of that is just bad but some of it shows a spark of amateur creativity or at least a wtf moment, like the croc that's 2/3 tail shooting lasers at the ephemeral floating thing firing back.
Quote from: Elfdart;459905I rather liked Sutherland's sketches in the margins of the DMG (pp 170-173), as well as a picture from G1 of a giant hanging his cloak on the wall.
I'm not going to pretend most of Sutherland's work wasn't amateurish, but (a) he WAS an amateur and (b) he was asked to draw simple sketches, not artistic masterpieces. So bitching about his level of talent is both stupid and pointless.
You see I would argue that a guy that is employed as the lead artist and artistic director of TSR for 20 years is not an Amateur. I doubt he was asked to do simple sketches either.
If I were putting a book together I would ask the artistic director to put in the best art we could afford, to reach out to young talent that would take less money to feature in the fastest selling most popular game in the world.
I probabaly wouldn't say "Dave just fill this up with some of your crappy sketches doesn't matter if the picture of all the races, a key picture to establish the look and feel of the game, is a bit crap so long as it's a bit crap in charming amateurish way cos charming amateurs who don't know what we are doing is just the angle I was going for with the firm...."
Nicephorus: there are amateur pieces from that period I like, but they aren't these ones. At best, fantasy art then had a human quality that's missing from more modern/slick presentation; at worst, they were just bad.
Quote from: jibbajibba;459974You see I would argue that a guy that is employed as the lead artist and artistic director of TSR for 20 years is not an Amateur.
Lead artist at TSR probably meant "first guy hired". Artistic director meant "guy who recruits other artsists for TSR. Neither requires any great skill.
QuoteI doubt he was asked to do simple sketches either.
Well that's what he delivered. I can't remember anything in color other than the DMG cover.
QuoteIf I were putting a book together I would ask the artistic director to put in the best art we could afford,
Maybe that WAS the best TSR could afford back then. You'll notice that once the company started bringing in sales they brought in new artists like Roslof, Dee, Willingham, Otus and others.
QuoteI probabaly wouldn't say "Dave just fill this up with some of your crappy sketches doesn't matter if the picture of all the races, a key picture to establish the look and feel of the game, is a bit crap so long as it's a bit crap in charming amateurish way cos charming amateurs who don't know what we are doing is just the angle I was going for with the firm...."
You're awfully hung up on that pic for some reason. What's so bad about it?
Quote from: jibbajibba;458269And the all time winner ....
(http://images.unurthed.com/modron-monodrone-87.jpg)
So what would a "good" picture of one of those things look like?
Quote from: warp9;460413So what would a "good" picture of one of those things look like?
I think this is well done.
(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/alumni_2011_01_10.jpg)
Though I don't have jibba's pure hate of the mm2 drone either.
Quote from: Elfdart;460374Lead artist at TSR probably meant "first guy hired". Artistic director meant "guy who recruits other artsists for TSR. Neither requires any great skill.
Well that's what he delivered. I can't remember anything in color other than the DMG cover.
Maybe that WAS the best TSR could afford back then. You'll notice that once the company started bringing in sales they brought in new artists like Roslof, Dee, Willingham, Otus and others.
You're awfully hung up on that pic for some reason. What's so bad about it?
You are pretty dismissive of artists mate.
Even if we accept that TSR were a hobby crew when they started by the tiem AD&D was coming out they were a cultural phenonema. If your job is to fill a book with decent art then DCS failed miserablly on all counts.
He delivered sketches but there is a big difference between a fully worked piece and a sketch and its nothing to do with colour. You will have noticed there is no colour art in any of hte 3 core AD&D books. Look at teh DAT stuff again that Benoist posted. That is black and white but its finsihed to a degree of skill.
Otus , DAT etc were all on the payroll already their art is throughout the 1e books.
As for being hung up on that pic, meh... there is plenty of shit to pick on that one was just popular on this forum and particularly egregious.
Were comic artists paid a lot in the late 70s?
This is a panel from a Conan comic from 1977:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Savagesword24_07.jpg)
Quote from: Age of Fable;460445Were comic artists paid a lot in the late 70s?
This is a panel from a Conan comic from 1977:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Savagesword24_07.jpg)
That is Buscema though and he was exceptionally good (the detail in his backgorunds is great)
I am assuming you are saying 'Comic art was good why didn't the RPG firms grab some comic artists?'
They weren't all good though but the 'How to Draw Comics the mavel way' text book does show that the basics of scale , proportion, anatomy and structure are pretty key.
Man, having D&D rulebooks with John Buscema art, or most of the art that came out of Savage Sword of Conan in the late 70s / early 80s would have been badass.
Its weird that you picked Buscema and asked if they were paid a lot. He complained later in life for not getting paid enough. If you really focus on the notices when he started, you'll see his dynamic style was used as a band aid to replace Jack Kirby's dynamism however he lacked Kirby's knack for new content (characters, equipment, etc) so he yearned for that same recognition that Kirby recieved in the end even though it wasn't well rewarded. I like Buscema. In addition to the Conan comics (CONAN THE BARBARIAN, KING CONAN) and mags (SAVAGE TALES and SAVAGE SWORD OF CONAN) Buscema's Silver Surfer series of the late 60's that continued the adventures of the Silver Surfer trapped on Earth with Mephisto and the Badoon invasion (they ripped off this for "V") are amongst my favorite old comics. I just love the way every issue started with him whining about how fucked up man is... AND YET... ;)
Barry Smith CONAN THE BARBARIAN was good for a time when he was emulating Kirby and Steranko once he came into his own by the 80's he was getting somewhat flowery although still technically nice to look at it didn't seem like he was in the flavor.
Quote from: Cole;460418I think this is well done.
(http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/alumni_2011_01_10.jpg)
Though I don't have jibba's pure hate of the mm2 drone either.
Hey thanks, :) that is better.
I do agree with jibbajibba about how bad the original picture looks, but I thought maybe it was just a stupid looking monster. It is probably harder for an artist to get inspired when drawing something like a mono-drone, but I guess it is part of an artists job to make it look cool.
Quote from: jibbajibba;460450I am assuming you are saying 'Comic art was good why didn't the RPG firms grab some comic artists?'
I guess I'm saying that there was a pool of people out there who knew how to draw wizards and barbarians. Comics is one of those fields where there are lots more people who want to work in the industry than there are jobs (like RPGs). So presumably there were unemployed artists who could have done a good job.
Quote from: Age of Fable;460482I guess I'm saying that there was a pool of people out there who knew how to draw wizards and barbarians. Comics is one of those fields where there are lots more people who want to work in the industry than there are jobs (like RPGs). So presumably there were unemployed artists who could have done a good job.
Yeah, but a Buscema/Alcala piece isn't really the quality of illustration you'd get from "unemployed comic artists" in the 70s. Considering who was getting work, you'd be looking more at something sub-Ron Wilson in quality.
(http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/rsz_image00042-620x645.jpg)
Which, you know, is kind of like Jim Holloway but without the whimsy or the lightness of brush.
They had a lot of problems in the comics field in the 70's there was a mutiny at Marvel where they created the failed Atlas brand comics. Anybody remember those? If you blinked you might have missed it but they had an anthology magazine with some fantasy and a few barbarian comics.
Speaking of "Atlas" there was a 1975 DC fantasy (in the future) comic that I loved but for years I thought it continued like any other comic that I missed. (You know how you wouldn't get all the comics so you were satisfied with one? Or lucky to have a few? Nowadays kids can't even afford one.) but it was a one shot test issue and it seemed like a cross between Conan and the Hulk. I must have read that a hundred times!
Quote from: Melan;459720While we are on the subject of horrible art, check out this microblog about late 70s to late 90s Hungarian fantasy art (http://paperdungeon.tumblr.com/). It burrrrrrns!
I actually like a lot of that Hungarian stuff... it's got spunk!
Quote from: TAFMSV;459731The Synnibarr books have some extraordinary art.
I love how this guy is waiting for the action to start. How long has he been in position, I wonder? Long enough to line all of his ammo up, biggest to smallest. At least he's got cover behind that log.
That had me cackling madly... people had to come over to ask me what was up... and it just seemed pointless to try to explain.
Quote from: Grymbok;460499Yeah, but a Buscema/Alcala piece isn't really the quality of illustration you'd get from "unemployed comic artists" in the 70s. Considering who was getting work, you'd be looking more at something sub-Ron Wilson in quality.
True, but remember they wouldn't be doing far less work than a Marvel artist, so they'd have time to do a better job. And TSR would be looking for artists, not artists and inkers and letterers. And that example was still better than OD&D's actual artwork.
Quote from: Age of Fable;460598True, but remember they wouldn't be doing far less work than a Marvel artist, so they'd have time to do a better job. And TSR would be looking for artists, not artists and inkers and letterers. And that example was still better than OD&D's actual artwork.
Yes to all that.
Today its easy I can find a dozen artists who will do a really good A5 sized black and white illustration for $25 or less on the web in about 10 minutes.
Here you go thsi guys does pen and ink for $25 an image of this quality
- (http://www.siffertart.com/artes/EDS_elfo-elf_07.jpg)
So I need say 50 decent illustrations for my monster book .... okay $1500 for art and I have all I need including a full colour front cover.
Now back then I am sure it was harder but if you are near a US college a simple add in the college magazine will get you more submissions than you can use and if you say this is going to be int eh new AD&D rule book .....
Quote from: jibbajibba;460615Now back then I am sure it was harder but if you are near a US college a simple add in the college magazine will get you more submissions than you can use and if you say this is going to be int eh new AD&D rule book .....
No kidding. There must have been thousands of high school and college kids out there who could draw up some halfway-decent sketches in a relatively short amount of time.
Hell, I knew a guy who could do that kind of work back when he was in 6th grade. And he's no professional artist.
I'm not really getting the whole apology thing here for bad art in those old books. Most of the art ranged from "that's not very good..." to "OMG - they hired a stroke victim!"
I realize the 70s and 80s seem like a more ancient time now and all, but really, people did know how to draw back then. Artists were plentiful and cheap just like they are now - clearly Gary and crew just didn't make art a priority and handed out assignments to friends and relatives rather than bother to get anyone competent.
Quote from: jgants;460635No kidding. There must have been thousands of high school and college kids out there who could draw up some halfway-decent sketches in a relatively short amount of time.
Hell, I knew a guy who could do that kind of work back when he was in 6th grade. And he's no professional artist.
I'm not really getting the whole apology thing here for bad art in those old books. Most of the art ranged from "that's not very good..." to "OMG - they hired a stroke victim!"
I realize the 70s and 80s seem like a more ancient time now and all, but really, people did know how to draw back then. Artists were plentiful and cheap just like they are now - clearly Gary and crew just didn't make art a priority and handed out assignments to friends and relatives rather than bother to get anyone competent.
Hindsight is 20/20. If Gary knew he was launching a new hobby that would last at least a few decades maybe he would have put more effort into finding decent art. Then again maybe not. If this thread has proven anything it's that art is entirely subjective and maybe he liked the stuff that was put in.
Also it's not like bad art was confined to the early days. I've been going over a lot of D&D 3.x stuff and had forgotten just how crappy a lot of the art is.
As usual Sturgeon's law is in full force, 90% of everything is crap.
Quote from: jgants;460635No kidding. There must have been thousands of high school and college kids out there who could draw up some halfway-decent sketches in a relatively short amount of time.
Hell, I knew a guy who could do that kind of work back when he was in 6th grade. And he's no professional artist.
I'm not really getting the whole apology thing here for bad art in those old books. Most of the art ranged from "that's not very good..." to "OMG - they hired a stroke victim!"
I realize the 70s and 80s seem like a more ancient time now and all, but really, people did know how to draw back then. Artists were plentiful and cheap just like they are now - clearly Gary and crew just didn't make art a priority and handed out assignments to friends and relatives rather than bother to get anyone competent.
I know what you means its almost like we are saying the art in those books was crap therefore that game was shit as opposed to the art in those books was shit so the art in those books was shit.
I mean everyone loves Classic Traveller and there was no art in those books.
No one is saying Ars Magica is bad because the art on the cover was a bit crap.
I do worry about the idea that 1eD&D is somehow a religious text that can not be criticised ina ny way without calling down the wrath of the Holy Ones.
Quote from: Xanador;460650Hindsight is 20/20. If Gary knew he was launching a new hobby that would last at least a few decades maybe he would have put more effort into finding decent art.
I actually have no issue with bad art in the original little books. Clearly at that time he didn't really know how things would turn out and the books were more about sharing some cool ideas.
I have a lot bigger issue with it by the time you get to AD&D, because by then it was making a ton of money, was really popular, and AD&D itself was strongly designed around the idea of making money and being a viable commercial product.
Quote from: jibbajibba;460653I do worry about the idea that 1eD&D is somehow a religious text that can not be criticised ina ny way without calling down the wrath of the Holy Ones.
Yeah... I kind of hate the whole vibe now where you can't even criticize the glaringly obvious flaws of older D&D/AD&D without somone pointing out that some later edition had some issues too.
Art in those old books was amateurish and often objectively poor in quality. I don't see why saying so is even remotely controversial.
If we allow criticism of the art in the DMs Guide, the next thing you know people will be questioning descending Armor Class.
I wasn't trying to imply that older editions were sacrosanct. I just wonder why they come in for so much criticism when plenty of current work is horrible too. If anyone deserves criticism it's the guys who only have to go online to find decent art, as others pointed out, yet still manage to publish crappy piece after crappy piece.
Quote from: Age of Fable;460482I guess I'm saying that there was a pool of people out there who knew how to draw wizards and barbarians. Comics is one of those fields where there are lots more people who want to work in the industry than there are jobs (like RPGs). So presumably there were unemployed artists who could have done a good job.
I'd rather have amateurish sketches by Sutherland or just about anyone else than the typical comic book artist. Most comic book artwork is dogshit, and the rest is borderline gay porn -the sort of thing
300 fans whack off to.
Quote from: jgants;460656Yeah... I kind of hate the whole vibe now where you can't even criticize the glaringly obvious flaws of older D&D/AD&D without somone pointing out that some later edition had some issues too.
Art in those old books was amateurish and often objectively poor in quality. I don't see why saying so is even remotely controversial.
How is artwork "objectively poor"?
Quote from: Elfdart;461181How is artwork "objectively poor"?
*grins*
Quote from: Xanador;460650Hindsight is 20/20. If Gary knew he was launching a new hobby that would last at least a few decades maybe he would have put more effort into finding decent art. Then again maybe not. If this thread has proven anything it's that art is entirely subjective and maybe he liked the stuff that was put in.
Also it's not like bad art was confined to the early days. I've been going over a lot of D&D 3.x stuff and had forgotten just how crappy a lot of the art is.
As usual Sturgeon's law is in full force, 90% of everything is crap.
Gygax himself said the artists often turned in pics that were way different from what he had in mind. Kobolds were meant to be small goblins, not dog-faced reptilian creatures. Orcs were meant to be basically human-looking with upturned, snoutlike pug-noses, not pig-headed humanoids. Half-orc PCs were meant to look just like humans. In one OD&D book, he told the artist that a bugbear would have a head like a pumpkin (meaning big and wide), which the artist took literally and drew the monster with a jack-o-lantern head.
Quote from: jibbajibba;460653I know what you means its almost like we are saying the art in those books was crap therefore that game was shit as opposed to the art in those books was shit so the art in those books was shit.
I mean everyone loves Classic Traveller and there was no art in those books.
No one is saying Ars Magica is bad because the art on the cover was a bit crap.
I do worry about the idea that 1eD&D is somehow a religious text that can not be criticised ina ny way without calling down the wrath of the Holy Ones.
Could you point out any examples of that in this thread? I mean, I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that you're a dishonest, strawmanning douche nozzle.
Quote from: Elfdart;461181How is artwork "objectively poor"?
Google Rob Liefeld.
Quote from: TristramEvans;461539Google Rob Liefeld.
You're confusing your subjective opinion (you don't like some guy's art) with an objective fact (2+2=4), which tells me you're either not very bright or a troll.
Or maybe both.
Quote from: Elfdart;461551You're confusing your subjective opinion (you don't like some guy's art) with an objective fact (2+2=4), which tells me you're either not very bright or a troll.
Or maybe both.
Well, you've certainly demonstrated your expertise in trolling.
Quote from: Elfdart;461181How is artwork "objectively poor"?
Take some art classes - then you will know the answer.
For example: BOTH Steve Ditko and Mike Grell are Comic Book artists. However, I think Mike Greel is a better artist overall than mr. Ditko is. However, many comic book fans mioght disagree with me. Steve Ditko had the good fortune to be the first artist that drew
SPIDERMAN and possibly
DOCTOR STRANGE as well. As a result he is remembered fondly by people.
Is he an artist ?
Yes.
Is he a good one?
NOT in my opinion.
I think Joe Kubert, Neal Adams, Mike Grell, and John Byrne are much, MUCH better artists than Steve Ditko.
- Ed C.
Mike Grell is best known for a 1970s run on "The LEGION of SUPERHEROES", GREEN ARROW, his own book The WARLORD, then SATARSLAYER, and JON SABLE:FREELANCE. Jon Sable was briefly also a TV series and a paperback book.
Quote from: Koltar;461556Is he a good one?
NOT in my opinion.
If you're in the realm of opinion, you aren't in the realm of objective fact.
But here, let's try this:
art is objectively poor when it fails at what it attempts to do.For example, if an artist is going for realistic depiction, there work will be a failure if they don't have the skill to render basic human proportions, if they have a faulty understanding of musculature and pose, or if they shade their work with incorrect understanding of how light sources work. Art that fails to achieve its goals because of the artist's shortcomings is poor art.
Quote from: Koltar;461556Take some art classes - then you will know the answer.
For example: BOTH Steve Ditko and Mike Grell are Comic Book artists. However, I think Mike Greel is a better artist overall than mr. Ditko is. However, many comic book fans mioght disagree with me. Steve Ditko had the good fortune to be the first artist that drew SPIDERMAN and possibly DOCTOR STRANGE as well. As a result he is remembered fondly by people.
Is he an artist ?
Yes.
Is he a good one?
NOT in my opinion.
I think Joe Kubert, Neal Adams, Mike Grell, and John Byrne are much, MUCH better artists than Steve Ditko.
- Ed C.
Mike Grell is best known for a 1970s run on "The LEGION of SUPERHEROES", GREEN ARROW, his own book The WARLORD, then SATARSLAYER, and JON SABLE:FREELANCE. Jon Sable was briefly also a TV series and a paperback book.
I have taken art classes, which is why I know that saying one drawing is "good" and another one "bad" is purely a matter of personal opinion. There's nothing objective about it.
Quote from: TristramEvans;461539Google Rob Liefeld.
Hey, if we can't call Picasso a "poor artist" should we really call Rob Liefeld "poor" ?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c3/Dora_Maar_Au_Chat.jpg)
(http://themadness.org/images/cap.jpg)
I think we can safely say that Rob Liefeld is just trying to follow in Picasso's footsteps. :D
Oh My Gawd!!
What the hell did he do to Captain America's chest??
That looks so fucking strange.
- Ed C.
There is far too much "spirit of liefeld" going on in this forum right now...
RPGPundit
Quote from: Elfdart;461551You're confusing your subjective opinion (you don't like some guy's art) with an objective fact (2+2=4), which tells me you're either not very bright or a troll.
Or maybe both.
There are multiple well-established ways of objectively judging the quality of a piece of art. Whether you
like it or not, is certainly totally objective. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the art. People like crap. Turn on the TV for numerous examples. It doesn't mean it's not crap, or that someone having bad taste equals "it can't be good or bad". It simply means you're uneducated in regards to art criticism and history.
Quote from: Koltar;461563Oh My Gawd!!
What the hell did he do to Captain America's chest??
That looks so fucking strange.
Reminds me of an old joke:
"Where did Liefeld study anatomy?"
"The Play-Doh Fun Factory."
(paraphrasing Andy Kubert)
It would be genius if it was intentional. It's just rollicking good laugh knowing even an iota of Liefeld's outlook. Sorta like Cezanne trying to rediscover the essence of childlike painting of form -- and then there's the gonzo adult who never outgrew the childlike painting of form (and got paid for it!). Truly, life perpetually outdoes fiction, and the gods have a delicious sense of humor.
Its hard to get around who is the worst in an rpg book because that means dredging through the shit.
What qualifies?
Poor interpretation in the illustration to promote style?
The TSR Marvel RPG games and the later 2e MONSTROUS MANUAL redo harcover (that was the answer to the negatives of the binder) featured an artist named Jeff Butler. He gave crisp definitive illustrations for both. HOWEVER he sucked donkey ass in his cheesy presentation. How can someone who made such an awesome tittilating weird comic (THE BADGER) and was much beloved by the direct comic subculture die on the vine like that?
Whatever the reason THIS BUTLER EXAMPLE contradicts what I just said.
Perhaps there is no winning formula. It is what it is.
Not everyone is going to like Sutherland but who can replace him? I've seen homemade pdf campaign books with inserted art from the likes of everyone (Frazetta, old woodcuts, etc) and it doesn't even come close to what Sutherland inspires. Say what you want about his style and technique the dude was in the zone most of the time.
BTW, laugh all you want about Rob Liefeld but he had a cult everywhere that took over everything in the name of creative control. He even did a Nike commercial. That doesn't make anything he did any good but naysay all you want he could sell the same thing 5x over to the same people. His fans were the source of why the term "fanboy" was coined as well.
Here is the latest and greatest shitty artwork. This is a picture of the "Magus", the new base class for Pathfinder.
(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/_/rsrc/1298308217726/extras/playtests/paizo---ultimate-magic/magus/PZO9012-Seltyiel.jpg?height=400&width=291)
It makes me think of how the goth starbucks pagan kids that do ninjiutsu imagine themselves.
That picture of Captain America reminds me of the Venus of Willendorf for some reason.
Quote from: Cranewings;461631It makes me think of how the goth starbucks pagan kids that do ninjiutsu imagine themselves.
Ninjas lurk at starbucks? The insurance premiums must be off the charts.
I forgot a real RPG relevant note on Liefeld. His era was the collectible era and in that frenzy they produced collectible cards with his images driving most sales and were "hard to find". It was so pervasive Pressman Games created this MARVEL SUPERHEROES "collectible card game" (in name only it didn't use the tricks of limited edition randomness like the trading cards were doing then and the card games we know of now) but it used the most simplified but ranged card stats (1,2, or 3) arranged on a d6 board. That game is practically an unknown blip on the game map but I knew of it because I had the game, a fellow comic fiend bought it for me as a birthday present because I was always waiting for fresh comics to pluck (I never got the box because I liked to browse) and they saw it in a comic store. It was widely visible in most stores that I went to. We played it now and then over a series of off weekends but got bored fast with the lack of detail and started to use the stats on the back of the cards produced by Marvel & DC to grade (1,2, or 3) all loose heroes and villains to add into the game. And I swear this is completely true we passed around the idea of using the stacks of loose TSR statted cards (monsters, weapons, magic, etc) for a fantasy version but scrapped because most of the TSR cards were poorly illustrated and didn't inspire me. Lets just play an rpg at least we won't have to look at it, right? A year later MAGIC: THE GATHERING came out straight out of a Rob Liefeld "painted face" take on fantasy (Compare white minotaur that M:TG put on everything and most Liefeld created characters for a quick example.).
See? 4th edition?
<> LIEFELD! ;)
In defense of Picasso and Ditko, I offer these:
This chunk of juvenilia from the adolescent Picasso shows that his cubist stuff wasn't a desperate attempt to make up for lack of talent.
(http://i.imgur.com/DOubo.jpg)
I've always loved Ditko's style, especially with the ink brush. Spider-man was hardly his best work, and he did a lot of junk for Charlton to keep the pot boiling after he condemned himself to be the Objectivist Jack Chick, but he's very respectable. I'd be pleased to see his work in an RPG.
(http://i.imgur.com/Vuf5w.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/BcoE8.jpg)
Quote from: Cranewings;461631Here is the latest and greatest shitty artwork. This is a picture of the "Magus", the new base class for Pathfinder.
(http://www.d20pfsrd.com/_/rsrc/1298308217726/extras/playtests/paizo---ultimate-magic/magus/PZO9012-Seltyiel.jpg?height=400&width=291)
It makes me think of how the goth starbucks pagan kids that do ninjiutsu imagine themselves.
That artist, I believe its "Wayne Reynolds", does Osprey books in a different well-prepared and thought out tone so I think that all that "Johnny Lube" fantasy is "sloppy joe" time for him. But the art design people behind these rpg productions at these companies will take anything as long as its embellished without regard for scale or actual gameplay. Thats what it seems like to me.
There are no hero artists in the fantasy rpg world willing to take the risk of a different styling if there were we would have seen a return to less queer and less baroque styling for fantasy by now. Even outside the rpg view, the austere stylings of the LOTR films still have a bit of "rpg wonk" to them. The moria orcs don't resemble anything that I imagined reading it over and over for example.
Quote from: TAFMSV;461641I've always loved Ditko's style, especially with the ink brush.
(http://i.imgur.com/63JDP.jpg)
Ditko's great, one of the real masters of illustrating panic and paranoia, his work has an excellent storytelling sense. His work
is generally stylized, but heroic realism isn't the only possible artistic goal.
Quote from: Gene Weigel;461644That artist, I believe its "Wayne Reynolds", does Osprey books in a different well-prepared and thought out tone so I think that all that "Johnny Lube" fantasy is "sloppy joe" time for him. But the art design people behind these rpg productions at these companies will take anything as long as its embellished without regard for scale or actual gameplay. Thats what it seems like to me.
There are no hero artists in the fantasy rpg world willing to take the risk of a different styling if there were we would have seen a return to less queer and less baroque styling for fantasy by now. Even outside the rpg view, the austere stylings of the LOTR films still have a bit of "rpg wonk" to them. The moria orcs don't resemble anything that I imagined reading it over and over for example.
Reynolds doing some strong historical work:
(http://mirageswar.com/uploads/posts/1201424197_w301.gif)
It still shows his distinctive rendering style (which I have always liked) while depicting a historically arrayed character in a basically neutral pose.
At the same time I appreciate his pathfinder work. If we are talking about fantasy, the terms "queer and baroque" are in my opinion as likely positive as negative; if we are depicting a fantasy world and not norman england there is not a need for the characters to look like they wandered off of the Bayeux tapestry.
Quote from: Cole;461648if we are depicting a fantasy world and not norman england there is not a need for the characters to look like they wandered off of the Bayeux tapestry.
There's no 'need' for anything as far as fantasy's concerned beyond what creates a comfort zone that conducts the fantasy for you and your buddies at the game table. There's what vibe you want out of your fantasy, and ultimately, what you like/dislike. I want characters who wandered off the Bayeux tapestry. I like this sort of thing. I'm weary of the high-fantasy cultural non-entity coming out of the blender that is just eye candy with no aim or goal beyond 'über-kewl, ain't it?'
Quote from: Benoist;461654There's no 'need' for anything as far as fantasy's concerned beyond what creates a comfort zone that conducts the fantasy for you and your buddies at the game table. There's what vibe you want out of your fantasy, and ultimately, what you like/dislike. I want characters who wandered off the Bayeux tapestry. I like this sort of thing. I'm weary of the high-fantasy cultural non-entity coming out of the blender that is just eye candy with no aim or goal beyond 'über-kewl, ain't it?'
It is not the the depiction of historical costume that I object to; it's the idea above that depicting fantastical costume is somehow a failure of courage on the part of the artist.
Quote from: Cole;461648At the same time I appreciate his pathfinder work. If we are talking about fantasy, the terms "queer and baroque" are in my opinion as likely positive as negative; if we are depicting a fantasy world and not norman england there is not a need for the characters to look like they wandered off of the Bayeux tapestry.
Thats where fantasy exploded into every pore out of the Pandora's box and spread.
The "post-modern rpg grognards", that seem to be everywhere now, believe the solution is a minimalist campaign of "LOW FANTASY". I hate low fantasy. Bring it on. Just don't make it look like Pokemon leaning towards the "many tentacled rapists from hell" (
see ROBOT CHICKEN Speed Racer) type fantasy. I love oriental medieval as long as it doesn't involve comics or cartoons. On the other hand, "PETAL THRONE" is something that I despise. Its low key minimalist, perfect for the groggingest grogtard in grogdom but why should I hate its steaming guts? Because its "one man's creative validation" but to everyone else it is a waste of time. I feel like I'm reading the masturbatory dystopian imaginings of my delusional uncle that they kept locked away in an attic but you know thats just me... apparently. "The professor is creative! Bastard!" Blah, blah, blah... look, I don't have time to emulate that shit at a table. "
Its got three arms and feathers however that is not its most interesting facet it is a shaerian shwoumelayan sharierererian eslayatata. What do you mean you won't a attack it because it'll be a hate crime?" ;)
"Keeping it Bayeux" might just be a method thats too fucking boring to do but what is the opposite? Thats fucked as well. Austereness and reality over freeform imaginings is the best way to go.
Always stay imaginatorily grounded in the feel is my suggestion to everyone. I've got nothing to lose by saying it either.
Quote from: Cole;461659It is not the the depiction of historical costume that I object to; it's the idea above that depicting fantastical costume is somehow a failure of courage on the part of the artist.
Well, the artist does what he's paid to do in this case. It's the publisher who provides a description of what s/he wants the piece to represent that is to blame for this kind of 'imagination failure', if any, isn't it?
Quote from: Gene Weigel;461662Thats where fantasy exploded into every pore out of the Pandora's box and spread.
The "post-modern rpg grognards", that seem to be everywhere now, believe the solution is a minimalist campaign of "LOW FANTASY". I hate low fantasy. Bring it on. Just don't make it look like Pokemon leaning towards the "many tentacled rapists from hell" (see ROBOT CHICKEN Speed Racer) type fantasy. I love oriental medieval as long as it doesn't involve comics or cartoons. On the other hand, "PETAL THRONE" is something that I despise. Its low key minimalist, perfect for the groggingest grogtard in grogdom but why should I hate its steaming guts? Because its "one man's creative validation" but to everyone else it is a waste of time. I feel like I'm reading the masturbatory dystopian imaginings of my delusional uncle that they kept locked away in an attic but you know thats just me... apparently. "The professor is creative! Bastard!" Blah, blah, blah... look, I don't have time to emulate that shit at a table. "Its got three arms and feathers however that is not its most interesting facet it is a shaerian shwoumelayan sharierererian eslayatata. What do you mean you won't a attack it because it'll be a hate crime?" ;)
"Keeping it Bayeux" might just be a method thats too fucking boring to do but what is the opposite? Thats fucked as well. Austereness and reality over freeform imaginings is the best way to go.
Always stay imaginatorily grounded in the feel is my suggestion to everyone. I've got nothing to lose by saying it either.
So the point has nothing to do with art per se but is another variation on "you think you're so cool but you're
not." That's a favorite around here, so that should serve you well.
Quote from: Cole;461648(http://mirageswar.com/uploads/posts/1201424197_w301.gif)
Where does this piece come from, by the way?
Quote from: Benoist;461673Where does this piece come from, by the way?
"Celtic Warrior 300 BC–AD 100," Osprey. (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Celtic-Warrior_9781841761435)
Quote from: Cole;461671So the point has nothing to do with art per se but is another variation on "you think you're so cool but you're not." That's a favorite around here, so that should serve you well.
Thanks for distilling that bit of tl;dr. My eyes glazed over at some point in the screed.
Quote from: Cole;461676"Celtic Warrior 300 BC–AD 100," Osprey. (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Celtic-Warrior_9781841761435)
Ooooh. That looks cool...
Quote from: Benoist;461679Ooooh. That looks cool...
Reynolds has illustrated several books for Osprey - you might want to check out
Carolingian Cavalryman AD 768–987 (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Carolingian-Cavalryman-AD-768%E2%80%93987-_9781841766454)
or
Knight Templar 1120–1312 (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Knight-Templar-1120%E2%80%931312_9781841766706)
He's also done some pretty wicked far-east stuff.
edit: selecting 'search inside this book' under the thumbnail will take you to a google books entry that shows some art pages.
Quote from: misterguignol;461678Thanks for distilling that bit of tl;dr. My eyes glazed over at some point in the screed.
Is that an "Antescrede of Bad Art Protection" spell? Because its working, now I just want to knock Alec Baldwin's teeth out with a balpeen hammer instead of the entire rpg industry... ;)
Quote from: Gene Weigel;461689Is that an "Antescrede of Bad Art Protection" spell? Because its working, now I just want to knock Alec Baldwin's teeth out with a balpeen hammer instead of the entire rpg industry... ;)
Your rage is impotent and weird, man.
Quote from: Koltar;461556Take some art classes - then you will know the answer.
For example: BOTH Steve Ditko and Mike Grell are Comic Book artists. However, I think Mike Greel is a better artist overall than mr. Ditko is. However, many comic book fans mioght disagree with me. Steve Ditko had the good fortune to be the first artist that drew SPIDERMAN and possibly DOCTOR STRANGE as well. As a result he is remembered fondly by people.
Is he an artist ?
Yes.
Is he a good one?
NOT in my opinion.
I think Joe Kubert, Neal Adams, Mike Grell, and John Byrne are much, MUCH better artists than Steve Ditko.
- Ed C.
Being a technically better artist (which Grell is) is not the same thing as having the impact that Ditko did as co-developer of Spider-Man and Dr. Strange, or having the sheer imagination that he did at that time.
JG
Quote from: Gene Weigel;461662On the other hand, "PETAL THRONE" is something that I despise. Its low key minimalist, perfect for the groggingest grogtard in grogdom but why should I hate its steaming guts? Because its "one man's creative validation" but to everyone else it is a waste of time. I feel like I'm reading the masturbatory dystopian imaginings of my delusional uncle that they kept locked away in an attic but you know thats just me... apparently. "The professor is creative! Bastard!" Blah, blah, blah... look, I don't have time to emulate that shit at a table. "Its got three arms and feathers however that is not its most interesting facet it is a shaerian shwoumelayan sharierererian eslayatata. What do you mean you won't a attack it because it'll be a hate crime?" ;)just be a method thats too fucking boring to do but what is the opposite? Thats fucked as well.
I'm pretty sure that some of Saint Gygax's monsters, such as the trapper, were inspired by or cribbed from the Good Professor's work...
Always stay imaginatorily grounded in the feel is my suggestion to everyone. I've got nothing to lose by saying it either.[/QUOTE]
Quote from: TristramEvans;461586There are multiple well-established ways of objectively judging the quality of a piece of art.
Such as?
Quote from: Gene Weigel;461610Not everyone is going to like Sutherland but who can replace him? I've seen homemade pdf campaign books with inserted art from the likes of everyone (Frazetta, old woodcuts, etc)
I resemble that remark! (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=48665)
Quoteand it doesn't even come close to what Sutherland inspires. Say what you want about his style and technique the dude was in the zone most of the time.
I'm sure his sketches inspired countless kids doodling in study hall to try their hand at illustrating FRPGs: "If this guy can do it, so can I!"
QuoteBTW, laugh all you want about Rob Liefeld but he had a cult everywhere that took over everything in the name of creative control. He even did a Nike commercial. That doesn't make anything he did any good but naysay all you want he could sell the same thing 5x over to the same people. His fans were the source of why the term "fanboy" was coined as well.
OK,
now I have a reason to hate him.
Quote from: Cole;461648(http://mirageswar.com/uploads/posts/1201424197_w301.gif)
I
wish that was the standard artwork style used for D&D.
The conventions of the crappy 3.x/4.x/Pathfinder school are interesting. Just why is it cool to be androgynous and to wear frills and spikes? Just why is it cool to have a vapid smirk as the default expression? How did these conventions become attached to the pleasure centers of whoever created this style? It's like I'm trying to decipher markings on a cave. These things must mean something to someone.
Quote from: The_Shadow;461778The conventions of the crappy 3.x/4.x/Pathfinder school are interesting. Just why is it cool to be androgynous and to wear frills and spikes? Just why is it cool to have a vapid smirk as the default expression? How did these conventions become attached to the pleasure centers of whoever created this style? It's like I'm trying to decipher markings on a cave. These things must mean something to someone.
I don't think those conventions are specific to 2.x/4e/Pathfinder though. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies are full of androgyny and knowing smirks; see that various Warhammer franchises for frills and spiky bits.
I think it's pretty simple - it's meant to hammer home that it's fantasy. Practicality and fashion don't come into it.
Quote from: misterguignol;461779I don't think those conventions are specific to 2.x/4e/Pathfinder though. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies are full of androgyny and knowing smirks; see that various Warhammer franchises for frills and spiky bits.
I agree. This is something more about the conventions of the times, about the trends of fashion and media, rather than something specific to a particular brand.
Whether an argument could be made that RPGs follow more the fashion and media trends now than they were at any other point in time prior to it, I'm not sure. I'm doubtful.
Quote from: One Horse Town;461780I think it's pretty simple - it's meant to appeal to fans of Gene Simmons. Practicality and fashion don't come into it.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ONV0uwjtH5I/TdhsxAiu3RI/AAAAAAAAAZ4/i1EIQoVh7YY/s1600/GeneSimmons.jpg)
Quote from: Cole;461648Reynolds doing some strong historical work:
(http://mirageswar.com/uploads/posts/1201424197_w301.gif)
It still shows his distinctive rendering style (which I have always liked) while depicting a historically arrayed character in a basically neutral pose.
At the same time I appreciate his pathfinder work. If we are talking about fantasy, the terms "queer and baroque" are in my opinion as likely positive as negative; if we are depicting a fantasy world and not norman england there is not a need for the characters to look like they wandered off of the Bayeux tapestry.
You know what's really funny? All the people bitching about Liefeld drawing people in unnatural poses when this guy is apparently leaning away from his spear for no reason.
When it comes to clothes and things that might be purely decorative, "queer and baroque" are OK in my book. But with armor and weapons, it's just retarded wank. If you like having characters dressed in what look like Gene Simmons' hand-me-downs, or dressed like extras from a Mad Max film, knock yourself out. I think that outside of a Mad Max movie, a KISS concert or a float in a militant gay pride parade it sucks. Hard.
This is a great thread.
I like the harsh criticism of Sutherland and other early D&D artists, because even though I like some of their stuff, I recognize not only the flaws, but the lame influence on the OSRobots. "Incompetent art is Old School, d00d!"
For instance, here's a Purple Worm tunnelling in and out of a wall (I think):
(http://bravehalfling.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Purple_Worm1-812x1024.jpg)
This could be an okay piece, but I'm not really sure what the perspective is. Is the swordsman lying on the ground?
It could be a lot worse. Naivete for naivete's sake makes for shit artwork:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_h1P2CBt9PX4/THvMEuGMYSI/AAAAAAAAAWU/Ze0JAIc9GkU/s1600/apocalypse+gorilla_v2+72dpi.JPG)
Quote from: Elfdart;461834You know what's really funny? All the people bitching about Liefeld drawing people in unnatural poses when this guy is apparently leaning away from his spear for no reason.
what people were complaining about with regard to liefield is that he draws people in anatomically *impossible* poses, not merely unnatural ones. some guy leaning away from his spear is not in the same ballpark of bad, mainly because somebody can actually do that. half the shit that liefield draws simply defies human anatomy.
The Dungeon-punk style comes out of Warhammer and the merger of citadel with games workshop it grows through the warcraft franchise and hits its zenith with WoW. If you had played everquest and the picked up WoW the fact that the characters and monsters were larger that life fantasy figures was definite bonus on the rather bland everquest models. WoW being by far the biggest western fantasy roleplay setting and esthetic it makes sense for the rest of the market to follow suit.
Going back to the impact of citadel their figures were always less realistric larger scale swords the size of massive cricket bats and spikes and helmets that would be impossible to lift, however they were more spectacular for it and when you are looking at something 5 feet away that is an inch and a half tall exageration has its place. Also citadel had superior production to ral partha and others and that was a big seller.
The Celtic warrior guy is not "leaning".
If you look at it the right way - he's just standing with one leg at more of an angle and holding his spear at an angle. Its kind of an 'At Ready' pose.
I don't see anything at all strange or unnatural in that stance.
Heck, I may have stood in almost the same stance with a walking staff while waiting(killing time) for a friend that was shopping at the local Renn Fest.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Elfdart;461834when this guy is apparently leaning away from his spear for no reason.
Looks like Parade Rest to me.
Quote from: Koltar;461864I don't see anything at all strange or unnatural in that stance.
nor do i. i found a comparison to liefield to be especially off-base.
Quote from: Cole;461648Reynolds doing some strong historical work:
(http://mirageswar.com/uploads/posts/1201424197_w301.gif)
It still shows his distinctive rendering style (which I have always liked) while depicting a historically arrayed character in a basically neutral pose.
Hmm. Well what do you know, turns out I don't hate Wayne Reynolds's art after all. I wonder whether the issue is the WotC/Paizo art directors telling him to draw daft things or the Osprey art directors reining in his natural instincts?
Quote from: Grymbok;461873Hmm. Well what do you know, turns out I don't hate Wayne Reynolds's art after all. I wonder whether the issue is the WotC/Paizo art directors telling him to draw daft things or the Osprey art directors reining in his natural instincts?
Yeah; weird huh? I like his Osprey stuff, but I just can't stand most of his WotC/Paizo work.
Sorry I took so long to reply, I went uptown to 40 Rock and asked to speak with Mr Baldwin but a slightly effeminate concierge apologized saying its just a show that they film elsewhere. So, in disgust over the whole thing I just took the concierge to lunch... WHAT!? I know... I am so impotent... Gushes tears into sleave.
;)
Back to the thread already in progress, I'm not sure if I've ever whipped out anything that wasn't my own on the gametable... I mean, artwise. (I have told players to show theirs just to prove that I have a very small one... DAMMIT! Not again! ;) )
Seriously seriously, I draw my own stuff so my players just enjoy my shit mostly. I say mostly that is because they sometimes sample images for their henchmen, etc. In the 80's I drew character pixel by pixel on an Apple IIc and later in the 80's in color on an Amiga.
Quote from: Gene Weigel;461894I'm not sure if I've ever whipped out anything that wasn't my own on the gametable... I mean, artwise...Seriously seriously, I draw my own stuff...
Pics or it didn't happen.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;461895Pics or it didn't happen.
What? Drawing at the table? I could do that now if you want with a bic pen.
I do have a folder of remnants but some really memorable ones are gone. Especially the post-game ones.
Quote from: danbuter;461772I wish that was the standard artwork style used for D&D.
That does look pretty fucking awesome. But not all RPG art has to be hyper-realistic. If it were, an element of the "fantasy" would be lost.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Elfdart;461834You know what's really funny? All the people bitching about Liefeld drawing people in unnatural poses when this guy is apparently leaning away from his spear for no reason.
"Unnatural poses" my ass. Leifeld does not draw people with human bodies.
(http://homepage.mac.com/deepfriedcandy/LiefeldAnatomy.jpg)
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Quote from: TristramEvans;461990"Unnatural poses" my ass. Leifeld does not draw people with human bodies.
(http://homepage.mac.com/deepfriedcandy/LiefeldAnatomy.jpg)
Sick.
Quote from: Koltar;461556Take some art classes - then you will know the answer.
For example: BOTH Steve Ditko and Mike Grell are Comic Book artists. However, I think Mike Greel is a better artist overall than mr. Ditko is. However, many comic book fans mioght disagree with me. Steve Ditko had the good fortune to be the first artist that drew SPIDERMAN and possibly DOCTOR STRANGE as well. As a result he is remembered fondly by people.
Is he an artist ?
Yes.
Is he a good one?
NOT in my opinion.
If they're teaching you that Steve Ditko wasn't a good artist in your "art school", you should probably get a refund.
Also, Steve Ditko didn't have the "good fortune" to be the original illustrator for Spider-Man and Doctor Strange. He co-created those characters. That's like saying that J.R.R. Tolkien had the "good fortune" to write
The Lord of the Rings, but if it wasn't for that people wouldn't think he was such a great writer.
Quote from: James Gillen;462144AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa etc.
Quote from: TristramEvans;461990- picture -
Oddly enough when I looked at Cap's picture a few posts back, I was envisioning
just this very thing.
Uncanny.
Disturbing is the word that comes to mind.
Cap's got huge nipples, gotta say.
Quote from: Danger;462882Cap's got huge nipples, gotta say.
He lactates justice and patriotism!
Maybe he's wearing silicon nipple patches (http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/51299717/Silicone_Nipple_Patch.html) ?
Maybe he just copied this
(http://www.superstarsarena.com/pictures/articles/arnold-schwarzenegger-mr-universe-to-governor-a-complete-story-1.jpg)
Quote from: jibbajibba;462940Maybe he just copied this
Fair enough, but it's still horrifying, unnatural, and unappealing.
Quote from: jibbajibba;462940Maybe he just copied this
Then he fucked up!
Quote from: jibbajibba;462940Maybe he just copied this
Good catch sir!
Quote from: jibbajibba;462940Maybe he just copied this
(http://www.superstarsarena.com/pictures/articles/arnold-schwarzenegger-mr-universe-to-governor-a-complete-story-1.jpg)
Yeah, people sometimes forget just how big Arnold was before he really got into movies (though he was pretty huge in Conan).
The Arnold pic still looks more natural than the Cap America artwork.
That just ain't right.
- Ed C.
Quote from: Koltar;463074The Arnold pic still looks more natural than the Cap America artwork.
That just ain't right.
- Ed C.
But if you were an egotistical Comic book artist who beleived they could push the boundaries of the medium and you had seen that Arnie picture you might argue that Captain America ought to be bigger than Arnie since at the time Arnie was a 25 year old austian bodybuilder but Capatin America was super soldier who had imbibed a potion to make him into the ultimate physical specimin.... maybe
Quote from: jibbajibba;463077But if you were an egotistical Comic book artist who beleived they could push the boundaries of the medium and you had seen that Arnie picture you might argue that Captain America ought to be bigger than Arnie since at the time Arnie was a 25 year old austian bodybuilder but Capatin America was super soldier who had imbibed a potion to make him into the ultimate physical specimin.... maybe
I am no artist, and I certainly don't know the first thing about art appreciation, but the problem with the captain america picture isn't the size (I get he could just be really big, or the artist may be doing a stylized exageration) of the muscles. It just looks off somehow. Like there is something inconsistent within the image (whether its proportions or lighting I don't know). Almost feels like he did model after something like the Arnold image, and just didn't render it accurately.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;463081I am no artist, and I certainly don't know the first thing about art appreciation, but the problem with the captain america picture isn't the size (I get he could just be really big, or the artist may be doing a stylized exageration) of the muscles. It just looks off somehow. Like there is something inconsistent within the image (whether its proportions or lighting I don't know). Almost feels like he did model after something like the Arnold image, and just didn't render it accurately.
The teeny-tiny head and hand doesn't fit at all with the bizarrely pronounced chest.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;463081I am no artist, and I certainly don't know the first thing about art appreciation, but the problem with the captain america picture isn't the size (I get he could just be really big, or the artist may be doing a stylized exageration) of the muscles. It just looks off somehow. Like there is something inconsistent within the image (whether its proportions or lighting I don't know). Almost feels like he did model after something like the Arnold image, and just didn't render it accurately.
Yeah entirely likely. It's a poor picture.
Remember though a comic artist draws a page with 12 - 16 frames in 8 hours. This stuff is disposible.
I only object to the Liefield comments because its obvious the guy can draw but just opts to draw superheroes in a hyperstylised way. Now you can easily not like it (I don't) but that is different from saying he doesn't understand anatomy or he is incompetant.
Quote from: jibbajibba;463077But if you were an egotistical Comic book artist who beleived they could push the boundaries of the medium and you had seen that Arnie picture you might argue that Captain America ought to be bigger than Arnie since at the time Arnie was a 25 year old austian bodybuilder but Capatin America was super soldier who had imbibed a potion to make him into the ultimate physical specimin.... maybe
It looks to me like it's mainly a perspective mistake..Liefeld was obviously going for a dramatic diagonal side view, but he ended up extending the back straight back instead of tapering it to match with the chest. So basically now it looks like Cap's skeleton is framed like a fleshy Optimus Prime (a truck cab extending out from the chest).
Quote from: jibbajibba;463087Yeah entirely likely. It's a poor picture.
Remember though a comic artist draws a page with 12 - 16 frames in 8 hours. This stuff is disposible.
I only object to the Liefield comments because its obvious the guy can draw but just opts to draw superheroes in a hyperstylised way. Now you can easily not like it (I don't) but that is different from saying he doesn't understand anatomy or he is incompetant.
Well, unless it's feet. Because Liefeld simply cannot draw feet.
Quote from: jibbajibba;463087Yeah entirely likely. It's a poor picture.
Remember though a comic artist draws a page with 12 - 16 frames in 8 hours. This stuff is disposible.
I only object to the Liefield comments because its obvious the guy can draw but just opts to draw superheroes in a hyperstylised way. Now you can easily not like it (I don't) but that is different from saying he doesn't understand anatomy or he is incompetant.
That is a fair point, and a lot of stuff happens when you are trying to go fast.
That being said, Liefeld's cap picture still bothers me. I don't see how somebody with basic understanding of anatomy would create something that bad. I could see how a good artist could produce art that looks sketchy and unfinished by going too fast. But Liefeld's work is simply anatomically incorrect. It looks to me more like the result of somebody trying to trace elements from two or more pictures and not really understanding how they should go together.
To my understanding, most artists follow a process something like this example (http://www.dragoart.com/tuts/8357/1/1/how-to-draw-maka-albarn,-sexy-maka-albarn.htm), where you start by laying out some basic guide lines, so you can get the underlying shapes set up correctly, and then flesh out the drawing from there. Liefeld either doesn't know how to do that, or doesn't bother to do that, either way, the result is bad artwork.
Or it's sheer genius of reinterpreting West African aesthetics focusing on elements projecting power.
:D
However, I have little faith that was Liefeld's process. I just see untrained amateur hurriedly producing "cool looking" panels under a time constraint. You all are talking about proper anatomy drawing -- are any of you sure he even took such drawing classes? Or paid attention while in them? He comes off as an amateur that stumbled into (huge) professional success. Expecting classically trained Western European aesthetics from him seems a bit of a stretch, IMHO.
Around the Spike-Lair (TM, in case Seimbedia tries to steal the name...), we've been discussing that picture and the consensus is that he started drawing the dude facing us but changed his mind and drew him in profile, and that the far 'boob' was originally a shoulder.
I have proof, but I'm forbidden from sharing it under pain of catching 'lefield leaping sickness'... I rather like having normal sized feet and only one knee, so...
Quote from: jibbajibba;463087I only object to the Liefield comments because its obvious the guy can draw but just opts to draw superheroes in a hyperstylised way.
It's obvious to you he can draw? Why? This may be one example, but I dare anyone to find a good picture by Leifeld. This isn't a matter of not liking his style, it's that he displays a complete lack of competence in regards to anatomy, composition,
Exaggerated anatomies are a stable of the superhero genre, but we're talking about someone who routinely distorts human proportions to the point they're unrecognizable. The cap picture is merely one drop in the bucket of amorphous, over-rendered blobs.
Style indicates that there is a conscious choice on Liefeld's part to make these mistakes, but even to dismiss it as style would require some sort of consistency. His characters will rapidly switch hairstyles, change size and proportions, there is no rhyme nor reason to the masses of muscles, even outfits alter constantly from frame to frame. And guns. Liefeld has never drawn the same gun twice, even if the character is using the same weapon throughout an issue.
Sorry, not to harp on about this, but I think it is an insult to the many hard-working legitimate artists out there to even suggest that Liefeld is a good artist who is simply working on disposable projects. There is no Liefeld drawing in existence that would suggest he has any skill whatsoever, and talent is worthless if you're stuck at the same level as a high schooler because you never professional develop your skills.
Liefeld is a personal insult to comicbook readers and artists alike.
But don't take my word for it:
LINK (http://www.progressiveboink.com/archive/robliefeld.html)
On a comic book forum I used to frequent, Liefeld's terribleness came up from time to time. I remember once, someone posted his earliest professional work on DC's Hawk and Dove.
It wasn't.... awful.
Hold on, found some. With feet, no less!
(http://www.flashbackuniverse.com/blogImages/PierreBlogImages/RobLiefeld/HawkAndDove1.jpg)
(http://www.comicrelated.com/graphics/hawkanddove2.jpg)
So, he had some modicum of talent to get him in the door. I wouldn't buy anything he touched now for pennies, and especially if he wrote it. The only thing worse than something Liefeld drew is something the fucker wrote.
Quote from: TristramEvans;463185It's obvious to you he can draw? Why? This may be one example, but I dare anyone to find a good picture by Leifeld. This isn't a matter of not liking his style, it's that he displays a complete lack of competence in regards to anatomy, composition,
Exaggerated anatomies are a stable of the superhero genre, but we're talking about someone who routinely distorts human proportions to the point they're unrecognizable. The cap picture is merely one drop in the bucket of amorphous, over-rendered blobs.
Style indicates that there is a conscious choice on Liefeld's part to make these mistakes, but even to dismiss it as style would require some sort of consistency. His characters will rapidly switch hairstyles, change size and proportions, there is no rhyme nor reason to the masses of muscles, even outfits alter constantly from frame to frame. And guns. Liefeld has never drawn the same gun twice, even if the character is using the same weapon throughout an issue.
Sorry, not to harp on about this, but I think it is an insult to the many hard-working legitimate artists out there to even suggest that Liefeld is a good artist who is simply working on disposable projects. There is no Liefeld drawing in existence that would suggest he has any skill whatsoever, and talent is worthless if you're stuck at the same level as a high schooler because you never professional develop your skills.
Liefeld is a personal insult to comicbook readers and artists alike.
But don't take my word for it: LINK (http://www.progressiveboink.com/archive/robliefeld.html)
Now I am not saying he is a great comic artist and I think his sucess outweighs his talent but you can't legitimately say he is the worst artist about just compare say ....
(http://thewolfmancometh.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/liefeld-2.jpg)
(http://cdn.comicartfans.com/Images/Category_35909/subcat_71696/LiefeldHB.jpg)
(http://www.jollygoodshow.net/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/liefeld/cable_deadpool_2_rob_liefeld.jpg)
to
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51U9oWjCI2L._SL500_.jpg)
Well, you're correct that Leifeld is probably not the worst artist working professionally today, but well...that's kinda like saying The Happening wasn't that bad a film in comparison to Manos, Hands of Fate. Sure, there is a lot of really awful stuff out there, but it wasn't featured on the covers of the best-selling comicbooks at the time, or plastered all over Wizard. They didn't do Levis ads. Leifeld is big-league crappy.
Leifeld was the spokesperson/posterboy for everything that went wrong with the comics industry in the 90s and led to a collapse that it doesn't look likely to ever truly recover from , at least not in the time before the form becomes obsolete. For those who remember how the comics industry was before...before the Death of Superman, before the collector's craze, before the hologram covers, and Lady Death, and Image, and Spawn, and WTF? Spider-man has a machinegun, the clone wars...my god the clone wars...
I think at the very least, Leifeld has earned his place as scapegoat.
Quote from: TristramEvans;463358Well, you're correct that Leifeld is probably not the worst artist working professionally today, but well...that's kinda like saying The Happening wasn't that bad a film in comparison to Manos, Hands of Fate. Sure, there is a lot of really awful stuff out there, but it wasn't featured on the covers of the best-selling comicbooks at the time, or plastered all over Wizard. They didn't do Levis ads. Leifeld is big-league crappy.
Leifeld was the spokesperson/posterboy for everything that went wrong with the comics industry in the 90s and led to a collapse that it doesn't look likely to ever truly recover from , at least not in the time before the form becomes obsolete. For those who remember how the comics industry was before...before the Death of Superman, before the collector's craze, before the hologram covers, and Lady Death, and Image, and Spawn, and WTF? Spider-man has a machinegun, the clone wars...my god the clone wars...
I think at the very least, Leifeld has earned his place as scapegoat.
Fair enough you have a pretty big axe to grind :D
but I think all your comments about Leifield are becuase he is a douche rather than because he can't draw....
And I loved the 90s for comic books 'cause I was reading Vertigo.
And that Batman picture is the batman picture they chose for their Classic Batman delux cover so .....
Quote from: Kaz;463188On a comic book forum I used to frequent, Liefeld's terribleness came up from time to time. I remember once, someone posted his earliest professional work on DC's Hawk and Dove.
It wasn't.... awful.
Hold on, found some. With feet, no less!
(http://www.flashbackuniverse.com/blogImages/PierreBlogImages/RobLiefeld/HawkAndDove1.jpg)
(http://www.comicrelated.com/graphics/hawkanddove2.jpg)
FEET!!!!
Quote from: TristramEvans;463358Leifeld was the spokesperson/posterboy for everything that went wrong with the comics industry in the 90s and led to a collapse that it doesn't look likely to ever truly recover from , at least not in the time before the form becomes obsolete.
Tangent: I think it's a mistake to blame the speculator bubble of the early '90s for the crash of the comic book industry. If anything, that bubble kept the industry afloat longer than the trend-lines were indicating.
The only mistake the comic book industry made during the speculator bubble was that it failed to reinvest the profits from that bubble into fixing the fundamental problems with comic book distribution: The direct distribution system was a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it saved the industry from the much more dire crisis of newstand distribution collapsing. On the other hand, it ghetto-ized comics in a way that made it very difficult for the industry to reach new readers.
The only reason comics still exist today at all is because manga and the Marvel movie boom managed to crack the door on getting trades into mainstream bookstores. If comics survive, it will be because of digital distribution.
Quote from: jibbajibba;463236Now I am not saying he is a great comic artist and I think his sucess outweighs his talent but you can't legitimately say he is the worst artist about just compare say ....
I think it's kind of pointless to hold up these cross-era comparisons as if they were telling you anything. It's like criticizing Tudor fashion because people would look ridiculous wearing pumpkin pants in Times Square.
Quote from: Kaz;463188On a comic book forum I used to frequent, Liefeld's terribleness came up from time to time. I remember once, someone posted his earliest professional work on DC's Hawk and Dove.
It wasn't.... awful.
Hold on, found some. With feet, no less!
He was being inked by Karl Kesel. And if you look carefully, you'll see quite a bit of Karl Kesel in those images. Like many inkers working with neophytes in the comic industry, Kesel was correcting the art.
(This, of course, can go both ways. Vince Coletta, for example, is infamous for butchering Jack Kirby's art by stripping out detail and simplifying composition.)
Quote from: Justin Alexander;463429Tangent: I think it's a mistake to blame the speculator bubble of the early '90s for the crash of the comic book industry. If anything, that bubble kept the industry afloat longer than the trend-lines were indicating.
If the speculator bubble hadn't actually affected the products being sold, I might buy that. But the problem wasn't really the speculators themselves, it was the fact that the comic companies made the deliberate decision to cater to the collectors in a way that deliberately ostracized the (very substantial) readership at that point.
QuoteThe only mistake the comic book industry made during the speculator bubble was that it failed to reinvest the profits from that bubble into fixing the fundamental problems with comic book distribution: The direct distribution system was a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it saved the industry from the much more dire crisis of newstand distribution collapsing. On the other hand, it ghetto-ized comics in a way that made it very difficult for the industry to reach new readers.
I think your history is a bit off. The direct distribution market started in the early 80s, and this was the birth of the "comicbook store". Yes, it has been claimed that this ostracized new readers who would previously buy their comics from the local supermarket or convenience store (though comicbooks weren't not removed from these outlets until the late 90s, with the increase of gratuitous sex & violence that marked "the Image generation". (Funny how appropriate that name was in retrospect). There's no indication as far as sales that comicbooks were negatively affected by the direct market...in fact this change precipitated the biggest boom in comic sales since the 60s.
QuoteThe only reason comics still exist today at all is because manga and the Marvel movie boom managed to crack the door on getting trades into mainstream bookstores.
Comicbook trades have been in bookstores since the late 80s. I bought my first trade ever at a Barnes & Nobles in a mall in '88. There has been no change to that in regards to the "movie boom". Manga sections in bookstore chains didn't start appearing until around 2003.
QuoteIf comics survive, it will be because of digital distribution.
Well, I think the "artform" will make that move eventually...but, well, they won't be comicbooks any more.
back OT, i recall the art in millenium's end (http://images.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=832&gbv=2&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SY3zTdj7OYPksQP49qGYDQ&ved=0CDkQvwUoAQ&q=millennium%27s+end+rpg&spell=1) to be pretty poor. the people varied between not too bad and oddly proportioned. but a lot of shots of folks with guns (the majority of the art, to be sure) were out of whack--usually the firearms, while well illustrated, were much smaller than they should be, making it look like folks were carrying .22 or airsoft versions or something O.o
i don't have a copy anymore to show some of the more egregious examples, alas.
Quote from: beeber;463487back OT, i recall the art in millenium's end (http://images.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=832&gbv=2&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=SY3zTdj7OYPksQP49qGYDQ&ved=0CDkQvwUoAQ&q=millennium%27s+end+rpg&spell=1) to be pretty poor. the people varied between not too bad and oddly proportioned. but a lot of shots of folks with guns (the majority of the art, to be sure) were out of whack--usually the firearms, while well illustrated, were much smaller than they should be, making it look like folks were carrying .22 or airsoft versions or something O.o
i don't have a copy anymore to show some of the more egregious examples, alas.
I believe the art for that was done by the guy who wrote the book. I could be wrong though. I was never really troubled by it; just assumed he was going for a stylized look.
Somehow threads like this always put me in mind of this poem. Not to defend Liefeld or anything but still, as people go on and on about bad art...
"Who stuffed that white owl?" No one spoke in the shop,
The barber was busy, and he couldn't stop;
The customers, waiting their turns, were all reading
The "Daily," the "Herald," the "Post," little heeding
The young man who blurted out such a blunt question;
Not one raised a head, or even made a suggestion;
And the barber kept on shaving.
"Don't you see, Mr. Brown,"
Cried the youth, with a frown,
"How wrong the whole thing is,
How preposterous each wing is
How flattened the head is, how jammed down the neck is--
In short, the whole owl, what an ignorant wreck 't is!
I make no apology;
I've learned owl-eology.
I've passed days and nights in a hundred collections,
And cannot be blinded to any deflections
Arising from unskilful fingers that fail
To stuff a bird right, from his beak to his tail.
Mister Brown! Mister Brown!
Do take that bird down,
Or you'll soon be the laughing-stock all over town!"
And the barber kept on shaving.
"I've studied owls,
And other night-fowls,
And I tell you
What I know to be true;
An owl cannot roost
With his limbs so unloosed;
No owl in this world
Ever had his claws curled,
Ever had his legs slanted,
Ever had his bill canted,
Ever had his neck screwed
Into that attitude.
He can't do it, because
'Tis against all bird-laws.
Anatomy teaches,
Ornithology preaches,
An owl has a toe
That can't turn out so!
I've made the white owl my study for years,
And to see such a job almost moves me to tears!
Mr. Brown, I'm amazed
You should be so gone crazed
As to put up a bird
In that posture absurd!
To look at that owl really brings on a dizziness;
The man who stuffed him don't half know his business!"
And the barber kept on shaving.
"Examine those eyes.
I'm filled with surprise
Taxidermists should pass
Off on you such poor glass;
So unnatural they seem
They'd make Audubon scream,
And John Burroughs laugh
To encounter such chaff.
Do take that bird down;
Have him stuffed again, Brown!"
And the barber kept on shaving.
"With some sawdust and bark
I could stuff in the dark
An owl better than that.
I could make an old hat
Look more like an owl
Than that horrid fowl,
Stuck up there so stiff like a side of coarse leather.
In fact, about him there's not one natural feather."
Just then, with a wink and a sly normal lurch,
The owl, very gravely, got down from his perch,
Walked round, and regarded his fault-finding critic
(Who thought he was stuffed) with a glance analytic,
And then fairly hooted, as if he should say:
"Your learning's at fault this time, anyway;
Don't waste it again on a live bird, I pray.
I'm an owl; you're another. Sir Critic, good day!"
And the barber kept on shaving.
James Thomas Fields.
Quote from: TristramEvans;463453Well, I think the "artform" will make that move eventually...but, well, they won't be comicbooks any more.
I suspect that like the dead-tree book, comic books as a physical and not digital medium won't be disappearing anytime soon. However, what does make eminent sense in terms of what people want to buy and the type of stories that comic writers/companies seem to want to tell is for the serialized comic-issues to be mainly digital, while the compilation of several issues into one full story is what should be really pushed for sale as graphic-novels/trade-paperbacks/whatever.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;463627I suspect that like the dead-tree book, comic books as a physical and not digital medium won't be disappearing anytime soon. However, what does make eminent sense in terms of what people want to buy and the type of stories that comic writers/companies seem to want to tell is for the serialized comic-issues to be mainly digital, while the compilation of several issues into one full story is what should be really pushed for sale as graphic-novels/trade-paperbacks/whatever.
RPGPundit
I would see that as the ideal compromise. It even makes a lot of sense as far as the serial/soap-opera nature of most comics. Like buying a season of a TV show on DVD/BlueRay after it's finished airing.
Quote from: TristramEvans;463638I would see that as the ideal compromise. It even makes a lot of sense as far as the serial/soap-opera nature of most comics. Like buying a season of a TV show on DVD/BlueRay after it's finished airing.
Exactly! You don't go around spending inordinate amounts of money to purchase the "Game of Thrones Seaon 1 episode 2" DVD.
I think DC's move toward same-day digital distribution with initial price parity (and reduced price on the digital comic after a month) is a good first step, but that's all it is right now; it ultimately doesn't go anywhere near far enough. Ultimately, the realistic final picture is going to be that digital comics being much cheaper, Trade Paperbacks being the main print product, and individual comic issues in print being virtually if not entirely non-extant.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;463837Exactly! You don't go around spending inordinate amounts of money to purchase the "Game of Thrones Seaon 1 episode 2" DVD.
I think DC's move toward same-day digital distribution with initial price parity (and reduced price on the digital comic after a month) is a good first step, but that's all it is right now; it ultimately doesn't go anywhere near far enough. Ultimately, the realistic final picture is going to be that digital comics being much cheaper, Trade Paperbacks being the main print product, and individual comic issues in print being virtually if not entirely non-extant.
RPGPundit
Agreed I haven't bought a 'comic' since Preacher but I have bought a lot of graphic novels.
Quote from: TristramEvans;463453If the speculator bubble hadn't actually affected the products being sold, I might buy that. But the problem wasn't really the speculators themselves, it was the fact that the comic companies made the deliberate decision to cater to the collectors in a way that deliberately ostracized the (very substantial) readership at that point.
But if you look at the actual trend lines for comic book sales, you'll see a steady decline from 1980-1989, a huge spike around the speculator boom, and then, when the boom ends, things go right back to the trend line they were on before.
The speculator boom was, at worst, a wasted opportunity because companies didn't take advantage of the capital it was generating to create long-term growth by breaking back into mainstream markets. But in terms of the steady decline of comic book readership? It's pretty much irrelevant. Sales after the '91-'93 boom went right back to where they had been before and continued the exact same downward trajectory they had before.
QuoteI think your history is a bit off. The direct distribution market started in the early 80s, and this was the birth of the "comicbook store". Yes, it has been claimed that this ostracized new readers who would previously buy their comics from the local supermarket or convenience store (though comicbooks weren't not removed from these outlets until the late 90s, with the increase of gratuitous sex & violence that marked "the Image generation". (Funny how appropriate that name was in retrospect). There's no indication as far as sales that comicbooks were negatively affected by the direct market...in fact this change precipitated the biggest boom in comic sales since the 60s.
That's... umm... not true. Sorry. Direct distribution did not increase comic book sales. It did, however, make titles with lower sales economically viable (since titles sold through direct distribution could not be returned). This both returned the industry to profitability for the first time in years, and also allowed independent publishers to flourish.
I'm surprised that you're confused about this. It's pretty trivial to research the reality.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;464095But if you look at the actual trend lines for comic book sales, you'll see a steady decline from 1980-1989, a huge spike around the speculator boom, and then, when the boom ends, things go right back to the trend line they were on before.
I guess my ultimate point was comicbook readership was at an all-time high in the 80s, and the inflation of the collector's market in the 90s corresponded with an increasing drop in readership. Many titles during the 90s that were "bestsellers" were only so because of speculators. The majority of comic sales during the time went to gimmick issues and covers. If you think the industry has recovered to the point it was before the 90s then all I have to say is look at sales for X-men, consistently the strongest comic title in North America. It is currently doing figures that would have got the book canceled during the 80s. Comics did not "go right back to the trend line" after the 90s. The comics industry is struggling, and Marvel is basically kept afloat at the moment because the companies who now own it see comicbooks basically as cheap advertising for films & merchandise. When superhero films go out of style again (probably about the same time as we recover from the current economic downswing if history so far has taught us anything), I think the comic industry is in for trouble.
QuoteThe speculator boom was, at worst, a wasted opportunity because companies didn't take advantage of the capital it was generating to create long-term growth by breaking back into mainstream markets. But in terms of the steady decline of comic book readership? It's pretty much irrelevant. Sales after the '91-'93 boom went right back to where they had been before and continued the exact same downward trajectory they had before.
That's not even remotely true.
QuoteThat's... umm... not true. Sorry. Direct distribution did not increase comic book sales.
Except that it very much did.
Quote from: wikipediaBy 1985, the number of direct distributors in North America peaked with approximately twenty companies, many of them multi-warehouse operations, purchasing product for resale to retailers directly from either DC Comics, Marvel Comics, or both. There were also an unknown number, probably in the dozens, of sub-distributors who bought DCs and Marvels from these larger companies (and often the products of other, smaller publishers direct from those publishers), and re-sold to retailers. Most though not all of these sub-distributors were in cities in which the direct distributors themselves did not (at least as yet) have warehouses, including Philadelphia, Boston, Columbus (Ohio), Madison (Wisconsin), Lansing (Michigan), Indianapolis, and Berkeley (California). Many of them were eventually absorbed by the companies which had been their principal suppliers.
From the mid-80s to the mid-90s, nearly every major urban area in the United States had at least one (and sometimes two or three) local direct distribution warehouses that functioned not only as distribution points for pre-ordered weekly shipments, but also as what could be described as "supermarkets for retailers", where store owners could shop for reorders and examine and purchase product that they might not have ordered in advance.
Guess how many distributors are still in business today? One.
Quote from: wikipediaThe development of the direct market is commonly credited with restoring the North American comic book publishing industry to profitability after contraction of the market in the mid 1990s. The emergence of this lower-risk distribution system is also credited with providing an opportunity for new comics publishers to enter the business, despite the two bigger publishers Marvel and DC Comics still having the largest share. The establishment and growth of independent publishers, beginning in the late 1970s and continuing to the present, was made economically possible by the existence of a system that targets its retail audience, rather than relying on the scattershot approach embodied in the returnable newsstand system.
QuoteIt did, however, make titles with lower sales economically viable (since titles sold through direct distribution could not be returned). This both returned the industry to profitability for the first time in years, and also allowed independent publishers to flourish.
It did that to, but as you can see it had a directly attributable positive effect on the comics market since it was introduced in the 70s, and according to this articler is what saved comics from completely going under after the Fall (don't completely agree with that, but it's wikipedia).
As I said before, the direct market was a product of the 70s, and had little to nothing to do with the speculator boom.
QuoteI'm surprised that you're confused about this. It's pretty trivial to research the reality.
Indeed. One would have though wikipedia would have been your first stop.
Then again, I don't feel as much need to research having lived through the periods during a time I was actively a part of the industry. I mean, most of the things I've said on this thread so far are likely originally from the mouth of Jim Shooter.
Quote from: TristramEvans;464153I guess my ultimate point was comicbook readership was at an all-time high in the 80s,
Uh... No. That's totally not true. I'm really unclear on how you could even possibly begin to believe that that was true. It indicates a complete ignorance of the history of the comic book industry.
In the 1940s, for example, there were multiple publishers who all had comics selling 1,000,000+ copies per month. In the 1950s, Walt Disney had titles selling 3,000,000+ copies per month. That simply was not happening in the '80s.
QuoteThe majority of comic sales during the time went to gimmick issues and covers. If you think the industry has recovered to the point it was before the 90s
What part of the words "steady decline" and "downward trajectory" did you interpret to mean "recovered"?
QuoteQuoteDirect distribution did not increase comic book sales.
Except that it very much did.
Did you somehow fail to notice that absolutely nothing that you quoted claims that direct distribution increased comic book sales? The reason they don't say that is because, of course, it didn't.
One could argue that the speculator booms of the mid-'80s (the mini-boom around B&W independents) and early-'90s (the big one) were only made possible by direct distribution. But that's the
only sense in which direct distribution increased comic books sales. And in both cases, the steady decline and downward trajectory of the industry a a whole reasserted itself as soon as the speculator boom passed.
Rule of Thumb: When your own sources don't back you up, you've got a problem.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;464189Uh... No. That's totally not true. I'm really unclear on how you could even possibly begin to believe that that was true. It indicates a complete ignorance of the history of the comic book industry.In the 1940s, for example, there were multiple publishers who all had comics selling 1,000,000+ copies per month. In the 1950s, Walt Disney had titles selling 3,000,000+ copies per month. That simply was not happening in the '80s.
No, it wasn't. That was the Golden Age. That's why it was called the Golden Age. I have no idea what you think it has to do with the Speculator Boom or the Direct Market.
QuoteWhat part of the words "steady decline" and "downward trajectory" did you interpret to mean "recovered"?
I have no idea what you're quoting there.
QuoteDid you somehow fail to notice that absolutely nothing that you quoted claims that direct distribution increased comic book sales? The reason they don't say that is because, of course, it didn't.
Comic sales increased after the Direct Market system went into place. Whether you want to attribute one event to the other or not, it's still the order of events.
QuoteOne could argue that the speculator booms of the mid-'80s (the mini-boom around B&W independents)
Um, no. Now you're just making things up. There was no "speculator boom" in the mid-80s. Independent titles became more popular, but it had absolutely zero to do with "speculating". I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what that term means. The speculator/collector market grew in the 80s, but it had no mainstream acceptance, acknowledgment, or even awareness. It was when "investing in comics" achieved mainstream awareness in '92 that a boom happened, with an influx of money from outside of the hobby.
Quoteand early-'90s (the big one)
(sigh) the ONLY one, unless we are talking about tulips now.
Quotewere only made possible by direct distribution. But that's the only sense in which direct distribution increased comic books sales.
So you don't believe that comicbook shops increased comicbook sales? Or bookstore chains carrying graphic novels? That's only the two most blatantly obvious ways that the Direct Market affected comicbook sales.
In '81 Marvel tested the viability of the Direct Market with Dazzler #1, which sold $400,000 copies. By 1987 the direct market alone accounted for 70% of Marvel's gross sales.
QuoteAnd in both cases, the steady decline and downward trajectory of the industry a a whole reasserted itself as soon as the speculator boom passed.
Except that I'll now reiterate the one giant flaw in your conclusion: comicbook sales were not on a "downward trajectory" before the speculator boom. That's the main part that you're just sort of pulling out of thin air.
There was a dip in sales during the 70s, but from '79 to '89, comics showed steady and increasing profits. The preemption to the speculator boom was Ron Perelman's acquisition of Marvel, which is also when editorial control over titles was thrown out the window, bad relations with creators led to the mass exodus of the industry's "top talents" to Image, and DC and Marvel comics in general ceased to be publishing businesses and instead became IP-mines for trading card companies, toymakers, and (much later) Hollywood.
In 1979 a typical comic sold 100,000 copies. Today, 20,000 is common.
QuoteRule of Thumb: When your own sources don't back you up, you've got a problem.
Luckily, that's not
my problem.
Quote from: TristramEvans;464223QuoteQuoteI guess my ultimate point was comicbook readership was at an all-time high in the 80s,
In the 1940s, for example, there were multiple publishers who all had comics selling 1,000,000+ copies per month. In the 1950s, Walt Disney had titles selling 3,000,000+ copies per month. That simply was not happening in the '80s.
No, it wasn't. That was the Golden Age. That's why it was called the Golden Age. I have no idea what you think it has to do with the Speculator Boom or the Direct Market.
I'm sorry... Did you forget what you wrote? You claimed that comic book readership was at an all-time high in the '80s. I was pointing out you dead-wrong about that, just like you're wrong about pretty much everything else you're posting here.
QuoteQuoteWhat part of the words "steady decline" and "downward trajectory" did you interpret to mean "recovered"?
I have no idea what you're quoting there.
I'm quoting the post you replied to, dumbass. You were dead-wrong in claiming that I said that comic book industry had "recovered" (I said the exact opposite of that), just like you're wrong about pretty much everything else you're posting here. (Starting to see the pattern?)
QuoteThere was no "speculator boom" in the mid-80s. Independent titles became more popular, but it had absolutely zero to do with "speculating".
Sorry, wrong again. TMNT launched a mini-speculator boom around B&W comics that glut-busted about a year and a half later. I'm not really clear on how you could be ignorant of that. After all, you "lived through it". And it's not like it's some sort of state secret. 3 seconds of Googling turns up all kinds of sources.
QuoteThere was a dip in sales during the 70s, but from '79 to '89, comics showed steady and increasing profits.
Profits are not the same thing as sales. Profitability in '89 was way up because more sales were being made through the direct market; but overall sales were still on the same downward trend they had been on since at least 1970.
QuoteIn '81 Marvel tested the viability of the Direct Market with Dazzler #1, which sold $400,000 copies. By 1987 the direct market alone accounted for 70% of Marvel's gross sales.
No one is disputing that the comic book industry increasingly relied on the direct market in the '80s. In fact, I was the first person to point that out in this thread.
At this point we know that you're not reading my posts; you're not reading the sources you're citing; and you can't even remember what you've said yourself. You can't seem to distinguish between "sales" and "profit"; the word "trend" appears to confuse you; and now you're posting irrelevant factoids that have nothing to do with what you claimed.
Lemme know if you're planning to improve your posting habits here. Because I've only got so much tolerance for willful ignorance.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;464303I'm sorry... Did you forget what you wrote? You claimed that comic book readership was at an all-time high in the '80s. I was pointing out you dead-wrong about that, just like you're wrong about pretty much everything else you're posting here.
This is a semantic argument at best. We were discussing the state of the industry before and after the speculator boom, and readership before the speculator boom was higher than during or after. As I acknowledged, you are correct that these numbers don't compare to the Golden Age. Since the Golden Age occurred years before Direct Distribution however, and has no bearing or relevance to the discussion. The sales of the Golden Age reflected a period in history that will never come again, nor has any discernible effect or relation to the state of the industry preceding , during, or following the Speculator Boom.
QuoteI'm quoting the post you replied to, dumbass.
So, you're quoting your own post and asking me to defend your PoV? Did you lose track of your place in the conversation?
Well, here's a quote of yours as well:
QuoteBut in terms of the steady decline of comic book readership? It's pretty much irrelevant. Sales after the '91-'93 boom went right back to where they had been before and continued the exact same downward trajectory they had before.
Which doesn't reflect reality. Comic sales were at a certain point in the late 80s/early 90s just before the speculator boom. The Boom hit in '92, starting with the Death of Superman, which became a media event and created mainstream awareness of the collector's market, and the founding of Image. This was precipitated by the release of X-men #1 (8.1 million copies sold) in '91, with one of the early multiple-covers gimmicks. '93 and '94, the height of the Boom, was the time that sales were highest in comicbook history (yes, even including the Golden Age).
Looking at the industry just before the boom, however, we find that sales on comics had been on an upward trend since the early. In '89 Spider-man #1 is released and becomes (at the time) the best selling single issue of a comic of all time (2.5 million copies).
After the bust, Marvel files for Bankruptcy and won't again report a profit until 2001; Image dissolves; 80% of comicbook shops across North America have gone out of business, only
one distributor chain of thousands survives; and readership between '97 to '00 fell off at a rate of 7 to 10% a month. X-men sales in 1998-2000 are barely passing 100,000 copies.
The Silver Age peaked in '68, and had steady sales from '69 to '71 before sales dropped in the 70s. By '86 sales had reached the same levels as that in '69-71, and by '88 comic sales were higher than they were during '68. And this is just taking into account combined Marvel and DC, without even taking into account the independent market nor the growing number of smaller publishing houses.
Your claim that "Sales after the '91-'93 boom went right back to where they had been before and continued the exact same downward trajectory they had before" is demonstrably false and deliberately misleading. It also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why the speculator boom busted and the myriad ways this affected the industry.
QuoteYou were dead-wrong in claiming that I said that comic book industry had "recovered" (I said the exact opposite of that), just like you're wrong about pretty much everything else you're posting here. (Starting to see the pattern?)
Ok, so instead of interpretating your statements to mean that you think that sales eventually returned to the point they were before the boom, what you were actually saying is that you are in complete denial that there even was a sharp drop in sales after the bust.
QuoteSorry, wrong again. TMNT launched a mini-speculator boom around B&W comics that glut-busted about a year and a half later.I'm not really clear on how you could be ignorant of that. After all, you "lived through it". And it's not like it's some sort of state secret. 3 seconds of Googling turns up all kinds of sources.
Well, then, please do so. You're the first person on earth I've ever encountered who claims there was a mini-speculator boom in the mid 80s. There was the "indie boom", but obviously you don't mean that since it had nothing whatsover to do with speculators.
QuoteProfits are not the same thing as sales. Profitability in '89 was way up because more sales were being made through the direct market; but overall sales were still on the same downward trend they had been on since at least 1970.
Profits are not the same thing as sales. I repeat that because I never said anything of the sort, nor implied a comparison.
However, there is such a fundamental, common-sense, connection between profits and sales that ignoring is pretty much on the same level as not recognizing the connection between the advent of the direct sales market and the steady increase in sales as it became the major source of a larger and larger percentage of increasing sales throughout the 80s.
QuoteNo one is disputing that the comic book industry increasingly relied on the direct market in the '80s. In fact, I was the first person to point that out in this thread.
And claimed that it "ghettoized" the industry, cutting off new readers. Whereas I can find no evidence whatsoever to support that, in fact most evidence suggests that sales increased up until the point where the direct market ceased to exist and Diamond became the sole distributor.
QuoteAt this point we know that you're not reading my posts; you're not reading the sources you're citing; and you can't even remember what you've said yourself. You can't seem to distinguish between "sales" and "profit"; the word "trend" appears to confuse you; and now you're posting irrelevant factoids that have nothing to do with what you claimed. n
Based on every comment preceding this, I find that hyperbolic claim somewhat ironic.
I mean, you obviously can't support your position, so you've just descended into a clumsy ad-hominem rant.
QuoteLemme know if you're planning to improve your posting habits here. Because I've only got so much tolerance for willful ignorance.
Hypocrisy noted. But this is starting to suck up way too much of my time, so, yeah, feel free to believe things happened however you want them to have happened.
Quote from: TristramEvans;464342So, you're quoting your own post and asking me to defend your PoV?
No. That's not what said. Your illiteracy explains pretty much the entirety of your posting in this thread, though.
QuoteOk, so instead of interpretating your statements to mean that you think that sales eventually returned to the point they were before the boom,
Oh look. More illiteracy. How surprising.
Quote'93 and '94, the height of the Boom, was the time that sales were highest in comicbook history (yes, even including the Golden Age).
Uh... No. You're apparently mistaking the single issue sales record of X-Men #1 to mean that overall sales in the industry were higher. That's not true, either.
QuoteIn '89 Spider-man #1 is released and becomes (at the time) the best selling single issue of a comic of all time (2.5 million copies).
Man, you just can't be bothered to fact check any of the bullshit you're posting, can you? Spider-Man #1 was published in 1990, not 1989. It's widely cited as the beginning of the speculator boom (featuring, as it did, multiple covers and pre-bagged editions). And 2.5 million copies did not, in fact, make it the best selling single issue of all time. Like I said before: Walt Disney had a comic in the 1950s selling an average of 3 million+ copies every single month.
Quote, only one distributor chain of thousands survives;
There were not "thousands" of comic book direct market comic book distributors in the '80s (or at any other time). That's complete nonsense.
QuoteImage dissolves;
No. It didn't.
QuoteThe Silver Age peaked in '68, and had steady sales from '69 to '71 before sales dropped in the 70s. By '86 sales had reached the same levels as that in '69-71,
I dunno where you're getting your "facts", but nobody in the comic book industry agrees with them.
QuoteProfits are not the same thing as sales. I repeat that because I never said anything of the sort, nor implied a comparison.
Oh dear. You've forgotten what you said again.
Man, I feel bad. I just realized you must be suffering from Alzheimer's. That would explain your inability to keep track of what you've said. It would also explain your dementia.
Get the treatment you need. Talk to your family. I'm sure they'll make the necessary arrangements to get you into a good program of assisted living.
(I get that your willful ignorance is past cure at this point. And since everybody else reading this shouldn't have too much difficulty confirming that you're loco, I don't really care. Ciao.)
Wow. So, you're getting your crazy on. Have fun with that.
Meanwhile, just for the record, you've failed utterly to support any position you've made and your arguments basically amount to "Nuh-uhhh", so,well, I've got better ways to waste my time.
I'm sorry to interrupt... but I need more bad RPG art to mock.
Any early Tunnel & Trolls? Home brewed vanity published heartbreakers? I need more visual stimuli!
Quote from: Opaopajr;464379I'm sorry to interrupt... but I need more bad RPG art to mock.
Any early Tunnel & Trolls? Home brewed vanity published heartbreakers? I need more visual stimuli!
OK...well I love Dragon Warriors, but this is maybe my least favourite Dragon Warriors monsters, the Rakshah. I may be cheating since it isn't so much badly drawn as a dumb idea, IMHO, drawn perfectly well.
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/rakshah.jpg)
If you were wondering it rolls at its enemies and kicks them, when it doesn't shapechange or use magic.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;464390OK...well I love Dragon Warriors, but this is maybe my least favourite Dragon Warriors monsters, the Rakshah. I may be cheating since it isn't so much badly drawn as a dumb idea, IMHO, drawn perfectly well.
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/rakshah.jpg)
If you were wondering it rolls at its enemies and kicks them, when it doesn't shapechange or use magic.
It might look dumb, but it is from a real grimoire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buer_(demon) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buer_(demon))
And another one from SenZar.
Maybe not bad exactly (well, I like it) but I had to post it, just because. Lesbianstripperninja!
(http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff507/BSJ17/senzar-img.jpg)
Quote from: HalfOrc HalfBiscuit;464391It might look dumb, but it is from a real grimoire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buer_(demon) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buer_(demon))
Thanks! OK that makes me feel slightly better about them... :)
I remember Buer from Castlevania! :D Oh god, there goes my cred...:(