New marilith/balor pictures

[I'm A Banana]

I do think a lot of these 'They're skinny and emaciated!' or 'I hate spikey armor!' complaints are quite....well....silly.

Mostly because you either agree with the sentiment or don't and there's no real logical reason for either...it's all personal preference. It kinda gets annoying when either side dresses up their opinion as the 'most logical choice.'

Some people don't like spikey armor. Some people do.

Some people don't like skinny monsters. Some people do.

Neither is any better or more right than anything else, and suggesting that it IS is slightly insulting, IMHO. There is no reason WotC's art HAS to agree with your tastes, and no reason the paid artist can't draw a lioncloth on a balor if he wants (for instance). So you don't like it. Okay, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that everyone who likes it has inferior tastes. That doesn't mean the choice is stupid. That doesn't mean that the artist is a complete idiot who can't draw a compelling monster.

It just meanst that your tastes are obviously different from the artists. Regardless of what the art looks like, no one is forcing your balors to have down-turned horns or your mariliths to be eerily thin or your armor to have a Picasso-inspired design or your blink dogs to look wicked or your blackguards to be fat. So the best thing to do is maybe say 'it's not for me,' and accept that just because you don't like it doesn't mean people have to agree with you.

We're lucky we get art, IMHO, especially by people who can draw better than stick figures. Just because I think the DMG blackguard looks goony doesn't mean that it's a worthless picture or that those who like how he looks are philistines. All of these artists are paid, and a lot of thought goes into their work. They obviously see some reason for 'dungeonpunk,' and us lamers on a message board aren't really fit to call it stupid. Call it 'not for me,' sure. Everyone has a right to their own tastes. But insulting someone else's hard work is in no way a positive thing.

Just because I think the balor would've looked better without a loincloth doesn't make it true. There's obviously a reason for it being there, the artist took time to draw it, and I have no right to call them a moron who's trying to push some 'Evil = Savage' negative culturalist stereotype on the game.

Come on. Everyone has a right to their own personal preferences, but that doesn't mean that those who don't agree with them are evil, stupid, nostaligic, or wrong.

 

[The Serge]

People are only honest if they agree with you? Interesting, but I suppose it must be true since your opinion is always, indeed, pure fact.

No.

I happen to disagree with those who think the Balor is fantastic. I think it's serviceable. I'm not attacking their opinion based upon their critique of the image in and of itself. I'm not even getting into stylistic preferences. I am attacking the idea that 1ed material is the standard upon which all images are/can be measured. In virtually every reference to 1ed art made in this thread (and in general to D&D) there's this attitude that it's "better" because it was first. Nonsense.

 

[LGodamus]

Well I for one love the new dungeon punk look and I like spikey armor and emaciated monsters...with that out of the way...I still like the old marilith pics better.so, NYAH. Seriously though, although the technical aptitude is there in the art I dont like where the concept has gone with the marilith. She is just a reptilian monster with vaguely feminine parts, but she used to have an interesting juxta pose of alluring and revolting that gave her a certain mistique and charactera and made the marilith one of the most unique of the demons, not so this new one.

 

[Gez]

She looks angry but weak.

There, she's an awe-inspiring fury.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

In virtually every reference to 1ed art made in this thread (and in general to D&D) there's this attitude that it's "better" because it was first. Nonsense.

It's better because it's not going for the Medival Spawn look.


IMO...for those who will think that i'm posting this as fact, when every single post here is IMO and I shouldn't have to call attention to that.

 

[The Serge]

Actually you should read your own post. You have implied throughout it that any of us who prefer the originals are only waxing nostalgic. That the old art is NOT as good as the new art, and the only reason we like these images is because of nostalgia. Utter Bull$hit. That is an opinion that you are trying to lay down as absolute fact. In my opinion I prefer many of those original images as art. I find them highly imagination-provoking and inspiring. If you do not, that’s fine, don’t tell me how to think, or that I’m wrong.

Did not say "any" or "all." I said those suffering "misplaced nostalgia."

And, I'm not implying anything. I stated quite clearly that I've never liked the concepts from MM I (or the Fiend Folio for that matter) but that I'm not comparing them to current works. I never liked them in and of themselves. I can see where the implication comes across, but that's not what I'm doing here. If that's the way it comes across (and I can appreciate such being the case), then so be it.

As for preferring certain pieces just based upon their own standard, that's fine; there's nothing wrong with that. It's when you compare them to other images and then drag out that whole nonsense about 1edbeingignoredinfavorofsomenewflawed3edparadigmandowthisisclearlyfurtherindicationofhow3edissomeproblematicgame, blah, blah, yakety, smakety.

Are the new artists more talented? Perhaps technically, but that does not make them a better artist. I happen to think the original artists show much more talent by taking nothing but a verbal description and turning it into an image that has endured for over two decades, rather than a current artist who is doing little more than adding detail and color to update an image that someone else created.

As I said, I would rather someone make comparisons about the art based upon the text rather than trying to draw comparisons between two time frames.

As for this idea that the current artist is just "updating..." Oh, so are we saying that's it's no longer good to use the "original" visual concept as a springboard? I thought that's what a lot of people wanted? And to this "enduring" idea, I don't see how either image shatters visual concepts for either the Balor or the Marilith.

Just say you don't like it and be done with it (as a number of people have done). If you're going to draw comparisons, don't drag that "nostalgic 1ed is an undying standard that cannot be replaced and has been ruined by 3ed" nonsense into the mix.

I think you should be honest too, and ask yourself if it’s really doing your position any good by insulting everyone who does not feel the same as you do.

Insulting? I don't think it's any more insulting than the those who say they think an image stinks. It's a position. I just want those who are constantly dragging their nostalgic angst to recognize their predicament for what it is.

If people are insulted, I'm sorry they are. But, I stand by my position and comments.

 

[The Serge]

She looks angry but weak.

There, she's an awe-inspiring fury.

What Gez is doing is fine (not that he's asking for my permission).

He's not suggesting that an entire edition concept is "bad" or "flawed." He's comparing two images and leaving it at that.

Yes, this is an expansion of earlier comments I made, but it falls into line with what I said earlier.

Anyway, as I said before, I like the conceptualization of the former image, although I think the latter image is pretty intense and... awe-inspiring.

 

[kenjib]

No.

I happen to disagree with those who think the Balor is fantastic. I think it's serviceable. I'm not attacking their opinion based upon their critique of the image in and of itself. I'm not even getting into stylistic preferences. I am attacking the idea that 1ed material is the standard upon which all images are/can be measured. In virtually every reference to 1ed art made in this thread (and in general to D&D) there's this attitude that it's "better" because it was first. Nonsense.

Who are you talking about? Name names. I mentioned preference for the 1e artwork but I also adequately clarified why I preferred it without even hinting at nostalgia -- or does the Hindu religion count as nostalgia?

If nobody knows who you're talking to, it's kind of hard for them to respond. Perhaps if you quote people or put down names in your responses instead of saying something to the effect of "all you people" and there will be less confusion.

Who, other than yourself, has tried to tell other people what they should think? Give us quotes so those particular people can respond.

 

[MinscFan]

First Edition art was (for the most part) of a lower quality. They had a small budget, and for the most part fewer artists to choose from.

But, I can see where some might wax nostalgic -- whether they mean to or not. For most of us oldies who grew up playing 1st edition, these WERE the monsters and beings that made PCs quake in fear.

Many of those 1st ed. images set the tone because they were some of the first. Have they been improved on over time? I would say, for the most part, yes.

But, I can also vividly remember the first picture of Demogorgan. While I think the BoVD art for him (them?) is better in terms of quality and style, I still fondly remember that first picture I saw.

Anyway, I like the new balor but dislike the new mari. I do like the 3rd party cover rendition posted by Gez very much.

--M

 

[Shemeska]

Hmm... maybe it's just me, but I think the Marilith in the new WotC picture is kinda hot. But again, maybe it's just me. *cough*

And besides, no matter the artist, no Tanar'ri is going to even match the sly, manipulative, and darn it all, HOT factor of an Arcanoloth. Speaking of which they better get around to doing a decent picture of one to replace that atrocity of ink in the MMII. *indignant shudder*