Which artist is best at which creature type?

[Pants]

Yeah, I liked the other monster art in there as well, WAR's most of all

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Kai Lord!

I also liked Demogorgon. Very reminiscent of John Carpenter's "The Thing".

...as opposed to looking like Demogorgon.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Pants mate!

Hmm I must be the only one who liked the BoVD art.

Possibly.

-Demogorgon, hyena heads aside, looked truly alien, sinuous, and evil.

He looked like a worn out Stretch Armstrong.

-Juiblex, well to be honest, I haven't liked any of the pictures of Juiblex. Though the 1st edition one was the best with this coming in 2nd place.

I have only ever seen two pictures of Juiblex and the one in the BoVD was the second best I had seen.

-Grazzt, he could be better, especially his largely disproportionate left arm

Graz'zt was terrible, far worse than his 1st Ed. 'Elvis' incarnation.

-Yeenoghu was great

Yes, one of the few excellent peices to be fair.

-Asmodeus, get rid of the ridiculous hair and he's perfect

I though Asmodeus was poor, regardless.

-Baalzebul, the problem with him is not the art (which looks fine), but the concept behind it, namely a big-fricken slug. There are only so many ways to make a slug look cool

Agreed.

-Bel, looked fine

Agreed. I liked Bel.

-Levistus, looked fine

Mmmm.

-Mephistopheles, looked fine to me

It was a fine peice, but it just didn't say Mephisto to me.

-Dispater, would you rather have an amateurishly drawn pic like in the 1st edition MM? Personally, I don't have a problem with him

I would rather have the 1st Ed. pic, as being the first picture of him it defined the character. As far as I am concerned the pic in the BoVD just wasn't Dispater.

-Hag Countess, looks pretty creepy and disgusting looking to me, fits the bill

Generic old hag, not bad I suppose.

-Belial and Fierna, probably my least favorite of the pictures, Belial looks really crappy

Yes again they ignored the Elvis overtones of the 1st Ed. illustration for something else.

 

[Kai Lord]

Hi Kai Lord!

Hey.

...as opposed to looking like Demogorgon.

Could you show me a picture of the real Demogorgon so I can compare? I've never seen him in real life before....

Seriously, who says that's not what he looks like? A paradigm based off the kindergarten doodle in the 1E MM? That guy looked like a dork. Slimy tentacles and canine jaws are much creepier than octopus arms on a two headed baboon.

The real question is, what is the quality of the art as a standalone image, and does it hinder or enhance the portrayal of the creature it represents? People looked at early pictures of the X-Men movie costumes and screamed "That sucks! Those aren't the X-Men!" Then they realized that Bryan Singer was actually trying to make a movie that affected people on an emotional level lke a real movie and wasn't just a Schumacher bat-nipple farce.

Same with Batman, nobody thought Michael Keaton "looked like Bruce Wayne" but he was fantastic and brought a lot to the role and made it his own.

I say the BoVD has done a great job of portraying Demogorgon, making it something that actually is a bit menacing and disturbing, offering a fresh take on an old dog (or baboon). Do you hate Todd Lockwood's gold dragon because it has wings?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey.

Hi Kai Lord!

Could you show me a picture of the real Demogorgon so I can compare? I've never seen him in real life before....

http://www.interplay.com/bg2throne/images/demowall.jpg

Seriously, who says that's not what he looks like? A paradigm based off the kindergarten doodle in the 1E MM? That guy looked like a dork. Slimy tentacles and canine jaws are much creepier than octopus arms on a two headed baboon.

If you introduce a unique creature as looking a certain way then totally change it for another look, you destroy the verisimilitude you are trying to create.

The real question is, what is the quality of the art as a standalone image, and does it hinder or enhance the portrayal of the creature it represents?

But thats not the real question. Demogorgon et al have a developed history in D&D.

Why change the look yet retain the 'character'!? Its a flawed dichotomy.

People looked at early pictures of the X-Men movie costumes and screamed "That sucks! Those aren't the X-Men!" Then they realized that Bryan Singer was actually trying to make a movie that affected people on an emotional level lke a real movie and wasn't just a Schumacher bat-nipple farce.

Changes were made to X-Men costumes because they looked ridiculous. Wolverines in particular. It would have destroyed the verisimilitude.

I'm sure we both caught the 'yellow spandex' line.

Same with Batman, nobody thought Michael Keaton "looked like Bruce Wayne" but he was fantastic and brought a lot to the role and made it his own.

The changes to Demogorgon (among others) are more akin to a Batman film where the Joker looks like the Penguin.

I say the BoVD has done a great job of portraying Demogorgon, making it something that actually is a bit menacing and disturbing, offering a fresh take on an old dog (or baboon).

While I respect your opinion (and lets be honest we are discussing a subjective matter here), but I don't agree with it.

Do you hate Todd Lockwood's gold dragon because it has wings?

No, because I always thought the 1st ed. version was too dependant on oriental mythos which is taken care of in Oriental Adventures now.

It must also be noted that Gold Dragons are not 'unique' characters, which (you will note) was the point I was addressing within the BoVD (not the art accredited to generic monsters)

 

[Pants]

If at all possible, could someone post a picture of 1st ed Graz'zt. I've never seen his pic before.

http://www.interplay.com/bg2throne/images/demowall.jpg

Damn, you beat me to it

I have only ever seen two pictures of Juiblex and the one in the BoVD was the second best I had seen.

I can't seem to find a picture of the Tome of Horrors Juiblex. I'll keep looking though.

I would rather have the 1st Ed. pic, as being the first picture of him it defined the character. As far as I am concerned the pic in the BoVD just wasn't Dispater.

I know that tastes differ in a lot of things, but I just can't let this one rest.
I gotta disagree, old Dispater was poorly drawn and lacked any devilish qualities. My friends and I laugh whenever we look at his picture. An Arch-Devil should inspire fear, no matter how cautious or calculating he may be, not a fit of giggles.

 

[Kai Lord]

If you introduce a unique creature as looking a certain way then totally change it for another look, you destroy the verisimilitude you are trying to create.

On one hand, I agree. For instance I never like it when a character pioneered by one actor is played by another in the same series. The only time this is really acceptable for me is when the character ages substantially, such as in story arcs that take a character from childhood to adulthood (the recent Daredevil, Forrest Gump, a couple of recent movies trying to pass themselves off as Star Wars flicks, and countless others.

But thats not the real question. Demogorgon et al have a developed history in D&D.

Why change the look yet retain the 'character'!? Its a flawed dichotomy.

I consider it the real question because in a fantasy setting there are a million and one reasons why a "demon lord" would change or metamorphosize its look. Perhaps Demogorgon was killed and reborn in a much more lethal version like something out of Princess Mononoke or dozens of other fantasy stories. Or maybe its technically the "son of Demogorgon" and took the name after cannibalizing its father and its father's knowledge to the point where its essentially the same character, but deadlier. Maybe it just got tired of the monkey heads. Who knows.

Changes were made to X-Men costumes because they looked ridiculous. Wolverines in particular. It would have destroyed the verisimilitude.

Exactly. Giant siamese Baboon twins that can't even open a can of pop look ridiculous, and may hurt the verisimilitude of a campaign world its terrorizing if its actually supposed to be scary. Hideous slimy siamese Hyena twins that can't open pop are much more credible.

While I respect your opinion (and lets be honest we are discussing a subjective matter here), but I don't agree with it.

That's fine. I've never even played in or ran a campaign where Demobaboon ever showed up, and probably never will (and that includes Demohyena as well.) I just thought I'd offer up my two cents.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Pants mate!

If at all possible, could someone post a picture of 1st ed Graz'zt. I've never seen his pic before.

http://www.mordor.ch/dcgg/graz.gif

...you can find anything with google.

Damn, you beat me to it

I can't seem to find a picture of the Tome of Horrors Juiblex. I'll keep looking though.

Juiblex wasn't in the Tome of Horrors because WotC decided to use 'him' in the BoVD. I was refering to the 1st Ed. Monster Manual depiction of Juiblex.

I know that tastes differ in a lot of things, but I just can't let this one rest.

Sure fire away, art is subjectibve after all.

I gotta disagree, old Dispater was poorly drawn and lacked any devilish qualities. My friends and I laugh whenever we look at his picture. An Arch-Devil should inspire fear, no matter how cautious or calculating he may be, not a fit of giggles.

What!? The 'old' Dispater looked like a Victorian Eccentric Criminal Mastermind; he was perfect.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Kai Lord!

On one hand, I agree. For instance I never like it when a character pioneered by one actor is played by another in the same series. The only time this is really acceptable for me is when the character ages substantially, such as in story arcs that take a character from childhood to adulthood (the recent Daredevil, Forrest Gump, a couple of recent movies trying to pass themselves off as Star Wars flicks, and countless others.

Theres an obvious difference between actors and art. Often television and cinema is limited by actor availability for whatever reason.

I consider it the real question because in a fantasy setting there are a million and one reasons why a "demon lord" would change or metamorphosize its look.

But the accompanying illustration depicting a 'character' should be its typical look.

I mean you wouldn't have a picture of a Dragon beside Asmodeus entry with the footnote "Asmodeus polymorphed into a dragon."

Perhaps Demogorgon was killed and reborn in a much more lethal version like something out of Princess Mononoke or dozens of other fantasy stories. Or maybe its technically the "son of Demogorgon" and took the name after cannibalizing its father and its father's knowledge to the point where its essentially the same character, but deadlier. Maybe it just got tired of the monkey heads. Who knows.

Well, if that was the case it should say that. So obviously thats not the case. Create a new character for the progeny of Demogorgon, don't change the existing one.

Exactly. Giant siamese Baboon twins that can't even open a can of pop look ridiculous, and may hurt the verisimilitude of a campaign world its terrorizing if its actually supposed to be scary. Hideous slimy siamese Hyena twins that can't open pop are much more credible.

That's fine. I've never even played in or ran a campaign where Demobaboon ever showed up, and probably never will (and that includes Demohyena as well.) I just thought I'd offer up my two cents.

I play in quite a powerful campaign where the Arch-fiends are not so much regulars but lets say recurring characters.

 

[Kai Lord]

Theres an obvious difference between actors and art. Often television and cinema is limited by actor availability for whatever reason.

I was agreeing with you on the point of verisimilitude loss when the look of something changes, whether it be a radically different portrayal in a painting or a different actor in a film series.

What does your comment about actor availability have to do with that? And art is art, regardless of whether or not a character is represented by an actor or an oil painting.

But the accompanying illustration depicting a 'character' should be its typical look.

I know. All of the examples I cited explaining Demogorgon's new look referred to permanent transformations. I think with regard to Demogorgon in particular, the issue is moot since I'm pretty sure Monte Cook stated either here or on his website that the artist misunderstood him and drew the hyena heads by mistake.

I call it a happy accident and if Demogorgon ever appeared in one of my campaigns (highly unlikely), dog-boy is the one I'd go with. You, however, can ignore the mistake like all the other errata-fodder and have fun with version as you've always pictured it.