New marilith/balor pictures

Arnwyn · May 8, 2003

The Serge said:
So, can people please back off the nostalgic nonsense. I swear, all it does is limit their ability to consider and explore new things. And makes them look shortsighted and conservative besides.

JeffB · May 8, 2003

The Serge said:
Here we go again with people whining about transitions in art and concept between editions. Oh, the renewed stench of misplaced nostalgia.blah blah blah...

.

Here we go again with another person who equates "change" with "better".

And I detected more whining in your first and last paragraphs than all other posts on this thread combined.

Grazzt · May 8, 2003

Well- I am in agreement with a lot of the other posters to this thread:

The Balor looks nice. The marilith just doesnt do it for me.

And it has nothing to do with nostalgia.

Flexor the Mighty! · May 8, 2003

The old, "This is better becuase it's new!" line. Please. I look through the 3e art and see dungeonpunk monsters and characters with tats and piercings and that look of a junkie who hasn't eaten in 2 weeks. I find that bad for more reasons than nostalga. 3e and it looks like 3.5e art doesn't even have bad character, it has no character at all! All IMO and all that.

nimisgod · May 8, 2003

I kinda liked both pics. Wierd enough, they seemed to have a nostalgic 1E feeling to them. Except they were far better than the art of old, IMO. I guess, I like the art of the new editions better than the old, sparse art. For one thing, the art in 3E usually has something to do with the texts its with.

Hehe. The Balor looks like a Scarran (from Farscape)

As for D&D stealing from TolkienL If one thinks about it, Tolkien took stuff from many sources as well. Such as the Nibelung (spelling?) for the one ring, Fafnir (and other dragons) for Smaug, Elves (Alfs) and Dwarves (Dvergar) from Celtic Lore.

I love the man's work but its not like he was Mr. All Original himself.

The Serge · May 8, 2003

JeffB said:
Here we go again with another person who equates "change" with "better".

Most interesting... I don't think the word "better" is mentioned once in my post. In fact, I even pointed out that one 1ed product had decent art (MM II).

Read the post.

JeffB said:
And I detected more whining in your first and last paragraphs than all other posts on this thread combined.

Of course you do. That's because you agree with the sentiments that support the ludicrous position that the "original" concepts in 1ed -- particularly those related to images in this case -- were "good" and that these new images are a bad "departure" from these "landmark" images.

People would be more honest if they just said they didn't care for the interpretation rather than jumping on that "nostalgia" bandwagon that perpetuates the belief that the "original" was "better" and the new and current is "bad." Compare the current image to the current description and leave it at that.

Most earlier visual concepts were poorly done... and childish to boot. They were back then as much as they are now, so there's no comparison with those images with these newer ones on my part. They served their purpose if one wants to compare them to the text, but they're not, and weren't, inspiring or inspired artistic efforts (and I could say the same thing for quite a few current images... by comparing the image to the description. My comments on the Balor serve as a case in point).

Get off the nostalgia bandwagon. Like the many of the older 1ed images, it's crickety and rotting.

Flexor the Mighty! · May 8, 2003

kenjib · May 8, 2003

The Serge said:
People would be more honest if they just said they didn't care for the interpretation rather than jumping on that "nostalgia" bandwagon that perpetuates the belief that the "original" was "better" and the new and current is "bad." Compare the current image to the current description and leave it at that.

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.

JeffB · May 8, 2003

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.

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.

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.