New marilith/balor pictures

I like them both.

I think part of the problem is that the Marilith is in the same picture with Balor, color, image, scale are against each other. You don't focus on the Marilith but on the red of Balor.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kenjib said:
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.

Well, for starters, I rarely like to single out individuals since it's not the individual I'm attacking so much as the concept the person's putting forward (I know, to most people it sounds like I'm attacking the person; in my mind, I have no qualms with the person since I don't know them. I have qualms with ideas presented. Otherwise, the issue becomes to "personal").

Secondly, I'm addressing a trend that I've seen for almost three years now; this topic just happened to capture my ire.

Anyway, although I think this is fruitless:

kenjib: I think the balor is absolutely fantastic but the marilith just ruins the monster completely compared to how cool the 1e edition one was.

Granted... perhaps this wasn't intended as some kind of comparison between 1ed and 3ed (and even 2ed), but it opened to door. There's another post that compares the "cool old creature with the Indian garb" etc. Again, in and of itself, it doesn't drag into the whole nostalgic thing, but it does feed into it. Frankly, I don't have a problem with this statement (I don't agree with it, though); I would have had an issue with it if I got into what the next one gets into. As it stands, it does feed into the entire 1ed vs. 3ed debates. You do get into this thing about "emaciated" and "spikey" images, again inferring that 1ed was a better concept (you use the manticore in this case).

JeffB: {mild rant}I really don't understand why WOTC is trying SO HARD artistically to tear the classic images down..the images that were pioneered by D&D....That would be like Lucas re-doing Darth Vader "Yes, I know he USED to be all black, and had a big helmet, but now he's sorta-kinda blue, and has just a small helmet where you can actually see his eyes and face!.. Cool huh?"{end mild rant}

Huh? I don't see how any "classic images" are being torn down. Many of these "classic" images are in greater force than ever before because 3ed has tried so hard (to its benefit sometimes, to its detriment other times) to maintain the feel of 1ed. From the names of creatures, to book titles, 3ed really has regularly nodded to 1ed. As for comparing this to Star Wars and Vader... The Marilith is still feminine, still serpentine, still has six arms, still wields a whole bunch of dangerous gear. This comparison holds no water because it's inaccurate.

Flexor the Mighty: I think the art director for the 3e books must have been a really skinny guy who had a lot of tats and piercings. Since that seems to pretty much sum up the art style to me.

The funny thing is that I often read and laugh at Flexor's comments because they're funny (in a good way). Sometimes I agree with them. But Flexor tends to come across as some kind of D&D reactionary. I don't want to get into specifics because I'd have to go through and dig up the numerous diatribes he's put out there about how 3ed is so far removed from 1ed and I don't have time for that. Old/original isn't any more meaningful than new/redesigned, but a lot of the comments Flexor's made would seem otherwise.


kenjib said:
Who, other than yourself, has tried to tell other people what they should think? Give us quotes so those particular people can respond.
I freely accept responibility for getting on a soapbox. And I don't apologize for it. However, this is supposed to be a freeforall rather than a debate with four people. Furthermore, I felt (clearly I was incorrect) that a general statement would not have been as harsh as singled out quotes; I miscalucated as there was no difference.
 

MinscFan said:
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.
I too played 1ed. For about three years before 2ed came out. I hated pictures in the MM then probably more than I do now. The descriptions were so much more intense than the images could hope to convey...

MinscFan said:
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.

I despise the BoVD Demogorgon and not so much because of the hyena heads. I despise it as much as I despise the 1ed image... if not more. At least with 1ed, he seemed to have some sort of power about him rather lank the appearance of being made out of rubber.

But, not taking the position that one concept was better because it's from a certain edition and because there's been some sort of huge paradigm change.

Pish.

Posh.
 


The 1e Mm spoiled me. I expect all mariliths to be buxom supermodels on the top and lithe serpents below. Granted, 3e also redefined the medusa, which also had a more human torso in 1e. If it were up to me, harpies would also have beauteous human-like upper torsos.
 

Okay, must be time to chime in here. There are two ways to look at this picture.

The first way is to say "Does this stay true to it's 1E counterparts, is this a true and good re-interpretation of the horrors I lived so dearly in 1E?" If I ask myself that question, the answer I get is "The Balor comes close, the Marilith was a good try that failed badly"

The second is to say "Are these creatures well-rendered in and of themselves?" And, that's where I'm going to put the meat of this post, because as an artist I feel that to do any illustration justice you have to ask this question seperately of the first.

Now, I try to keep in mind (because I suffer from it as well) that artists have good days and bad days. Even the best artists put out crap, and the worst put out nice pieces on some days. Deadlines don't distinguish between pics you're proud of, and pics you wish you could just re-start, sadly. That being said, these are my impressions of the Balor and Marilith...

BALOR: From the neck up this guy looks pretty good. Well-rendered, good anatomy, very good use of a single color-family without losing it all in similar shades that just look flat. Nicely done there. The wings are good too, they look like they should, and are about the right size. The loincloth.. I personally would have opted for a bronze-ish hanging armor-esque piece that added some decoration to the issue of a Balor's clothing choices as well as fitting into the brimstone and hellfire motiff of a Balor, and helped protect his infernal naughty-bits to boot. :). The tattered cloth thing really was a mistake, I feel. And I swear if I see one more lightning-shaped sword I'll retch. :)
The head... had a good start. It's shape is good, it's monstrous and demonic (although if it had been bigger (not the displayed pic, but the size he likely drew it at) he might have been able to give it more horrific facial features, but you can only ask for so much. It's the horns, the horns.. the horns throw the entire thing off for me, because I can't stop looking at them, and I dislike them. They look like they sprout from the top of his neck, and they just aren't going to be helpful to him. In fact, the only thing those horns are likely to do is prevent him from having a full range of motion with his head. He'll likely never be able to gore with them. That aside, this is a pretty darned good Balor. I'd have liked to see the whip (I am sure I remember Balor's having firey whips) too.

MARILITH: Where to start, this thing was a nightmare. From pelvis to collarbone, she's a very shapely lass who'd turn a lot of eyes in sillhouette. She is, actually, not skinny - that's an illusuon, partially fostered by the fact that her head is too big for her torso (unless she's built on the model of a 10 year old girl). The choice of which weapon is in which hand appears to have been given no thought whatsoever on our right side, because those weapons are in the wrong hands. Spear-scimitar-katar would be logical (spear in top hand, it needs room to maneuver, scimitar in middle hand, where it threatens the most, and katar in bottom hand, where it needs the least amount of movement to be effective). On our left, the worst I can say is that that is the stupidest flail-design I've seen lately. :) But at least she's holding her weapons in some logical order on that side. :)
Her head.. is just silly. There's obviously a strong push (perhaps from the AD?) to extend her snakelike resemblance up to her head, which I feel is a mistake. Yes, overall this is just a very impressive 6-armed Yuan-Ti woman and doesn't say Marlith to me at all, and I think it's because of the spreading snake-ness. From head to tail-tip she's entirely purple. And while I adore purple, it's too monochromatic (body-wide) here, where the Balor's use of a single color-family (red) worked for him. I have to squint very hard to even notice she HAS hair, or a nose. But, I think where the artist really droppe the ball on his foot was the snake tail. Not I can say all I want about 3E art being too cavalier about itself, and not trying hard enough to maintain it's own internal quality consistency, but many of the snake-like tails I've seen in 3E art have been excellent. This one, is poor. It's technique is poor, it's rendering is poor. I have the suspicion that if the artist were here, he'd tell us he didn't like that tail. If this is Sam Wood's work, then I think he must have either been having a bad art day when he did the tail, or was just bored of the pic by then. To really see the problems with it, you have to see the outline of it, not the texture and color. Visually reduce it down to just an outline, and it's really little more than an inconsistant, blobby tendril. The attempt to do it right was made, but not maintained throughout, and by the time it had been finished, you can see that it'd been lost. Somewhere in the initial sketch stages, I'll bet you that was a fairly alright snake tail.
And, lastly... what in god's name happened to that spear?!?!? :P It looks like it's been run over by a few semi-trucks. hehe

It's good work, it's just not excellent work because of some glaring problems that keep me from appreciating the rest of it. And I think the marilith completely lost the "idea and feeling" of what a marlith is.
 

Just a couple of comments:

* Yeah, the Demogorgon from the BoVD REALLY stinks. The original MM Demogorgon looked weird and alien, but somehow still imposing. The new one just looks, well...all droopy, rubbery, and lame.

* As for the dungeon-punk look, I don't like it and never have. Its just not practical gear from an adventurer's point of view. If I ran into a sorcerer with piercings all over, first thing I would do is yank several out- voila! No more spellcasting (just try making a Concentration check with a piercing ripped out). Also, the spiky armor is a big liability. A smart opponent would stike at the end of the spike on someone's helmet or shoulderplate. The torque from striking at the end of a fulcrum would dislocate a shoulder or snap a neck- and no more adventurer. Yeah, I know D&D isn't supposed to be realistic, but the some of the gear I have seen drawn is ridiculous. Historical armor and weapons looked the way they did because they were the most effective with that design.

Ok, mild rant over.
;)
 

Thanks for the clarification Serge! It is much more clear what you are referring to now. As regards what you addressed to me...

The Serge said:

kenjib: I think the balor is absolutely fantastic but the marilith just ruins the monster completely compared to how cool the 1e edition one was.

Granted... perhaps this wasn't intended as some kind of comparison between 1ed and 3ed (and even 2ed), but it opened to door. There's another post that compares the "cool old creature with the Indian garb" etc. Again, in and of itself, it doesn't drag into the whole nostalgic thing, but it does feed into it.

If you keep the statements in context, they are referring to this one, single monster and a comparison of why I like the old one better with several concrete reasons why -- the tension between sensuality and repulsion and the invocation of apocolyptic Hindu imagery both present in the old one and not in the new one. I'm not feeding into anything unless you define "feeding into" as liking a single thing in1e better than in 3e.

The Serge said:

Frankly, I don't have a problem with this statement (I don't agree with it, though); I would have had an issue with it if I got into what the next one gets into. As it stands, it does feed into the entire 1ed vs. 3ed debates.

I'm unclear as to what your purpose is in regards to bringing up this example. You seem to imply that I'm responsible for things other people say after me. I don't understand why. I suspect that your "feeding into" argument is simply a way to misattribute what other people have said to myself.

The Serge said:

You do get into this thing about "emaciated" and "spikey" images, again inferring that 1ed was a better concept (you use the manticore in this case).

Okay, I see your point here. However, if you look back at the context of that comment it was said for a very specific reason. Here is the quote:

Originally posted by Olive: you mean it was yet another half human/half animal creature?

My reponse: Yeah, I thought of that. With what they've done to creatures like the manticore though, there are far fewer straight half animal creatures now than there are spikey emaciated ones. You've got a great point though.

The context of this reference is in regard to the number of half human/half animal creatures in D&D -- not the quality of the work. There is no judgement in this statement regarding the manticore other than what you read into it yourself.

Anyways, hopefully I've made my point more clear now and alleviated some of your concerns.
 

kenjib said:
Thanks for the clarification Serge! It is much more clear what you are referring to now.

You're welcome. And thank you for asking.

kenjib said:
If you keep the statements in context, they are referring to this one, single monster and a comparison of why I like the old one better with several concrete reasons why -- the tension between sensuality and repulsion and the invocation of apocolyptic Hindu imagery both present in the old one and not in the new one. I'm not feeding into anything unless you define "feeding into" as liking a single thing in1e better than in 3e.
Right. I was trying to make it clear that I didn't think your comment was part of that whole "1ed is God" complex. The comment was a reference to one image and you drew a parallel between the two images. However, I do think that because you brought up the 1ed image, it sort of opened up the door for that debate to rear its head.

I'm not suggesting that you're to be held accountable for anything. I'm just pointing it out.

As far as your comments about the Hindu thing (and I'm getting off the 1ed/3ed topic for a moment), I think that getting rid of or at least reducing that imagery is a good move. I think this because Mariliths are Chaotic evil. I don't see them as having any sort of commitment to any one culture. It is clear that Gygax (or whoever can be credited with the D&D concept of the Type V Demon) was greatly influenced by the image of Kali or the destroyer aspect of Shiva (or even one of those old Sinbad movies), but I've never thought that Mariliths would adhere to any cultural atmosphere. As to your tension/repulsion comments, I generally agree with your assessment... although not necessarily for the same reasons.

Anyway...

kenjib said:
I'm unclear as to what your purpose is in regards to bringing up this example. You seem to imply that I'm responsible for things other people say after me. I don't understand why. I suspect that your "feeding into" argument is simply a way to misattribute what other people have said to myself.
As I said above, I wasn't clear in my comments. You aren't responsible. The comment did just sort of set a 1ed vs. 3ed tone, but that was not your intent. Sorry about how I communicated that.

As far as the whole anthropomorphic monster discussion, I tend to agree with the attitude that some of the images in 3ed have taken liberties with the "classic" representations of various monsters. When I say "classical" I mean myth, not D&D. However, I like the departures largely because they reinforce two attitudes I agree with:

1. The beings of myth resemble human beings and the monster they're crossed with rather than being a clear dual monster. It's sort of like the mermaid and the manatee; to the sailor spying from the distance, he thought he saw a gorgeous woman from an rather large shapeless sea-faring mammal related to elephants (I think that's what they're related to...). But, these are just resemblances. It's like the rhino, elephant, or brontosaurus. Totally different creatures with similar physiologies to the casual observer.

2. The new images capture an "otherworldiness" that I don't think was every really captured by trying to create these monsters strictly as human/beast melds. Adding spikes, giving them haggard human appearances, frizzy hair, strange eyes, whathaveyou capture this otherworldliness well. There were some images like this in 1ed as well as 2ed and 3ed and I've always liked it.

Anyway, thanks for responding.
 


Remove ads

Top