Underdark Art [Archive] - Wizards Community

Underdark Art [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
davethebrave371
10-12-03, 01:36 AM :OMG!Is it just me, or is the art (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20031011a) in WotC books getting better and better? I don't know who this new guy is, or if he's an old guy with a new flare, but some of that art is not only drop-dead gorgeous, but it alone makes me want to purchase Underdark. And that's a gaming first for me. The lighting, the mood, the wonderful colours...sometimes there's so much beauty in the world...the world of Faerun anyway. :D
Ryltar Swordsong
10-12-03, 02:00 AM This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ud_gallery/52100_CN.jpg) looks cool. Arachnemancer (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ud_gallery/52079_CN.jpg) is good too.
Yokinobu
10-12-03, 02:07 AM I liked the Races Group 1, 2, and 3. I think it looked darkly detailed, and the chitine there looks much realistic than the chitine in Monsters of Faerun. I wish my favorite artist, Wayne Reynolds, had had a part in it, but now that I think about it, the only FR source I've seen his art in is Monsters of Faerun.
Tempus665
10-12-03, 03:45 AM The art is wonderful :D

I think Wayne Reynolds is very good at drawing monsters and such, but I don“t think he should do Faerūnian concept art :tiphat:
Zanan
10-12-03, 04:36 AM Well, as the saying goes ... suum cuique. Some of the art is first class, but there are again (as with RoF) some pics in there who doesn't look at all FR to me. Or ... they absolutly do not met my expectations about some creatures. But one cannot have Larry Elmore, Todd Lockwood or Sam Wood all the time ...
davethebrave371
10-12-03, 04:39 PM Originally posted by Ryltar Swordsong
This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ud_gallery/52100_CN.jpg) looks cool. Arachnemancer (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ud_gallery/52079_CN.jpg) is good too.

*drools* Yeah, I love the Arachnemancer...the lighting is perfect.
knightserpent
10-12-03, 08:12 PM How about the Faerzress-infused Minotaur! I love it. It isn't as good as some of the other art. Especially the pic titled Menzo.. Wonderful all of it, really. :love:
Crust
10-12-03, 08:36 PM Eh... I miss Elmore and Easley.

I remember looking through the new 3E books and asking myself, "Now, why is everyone's shield asymmetrical now? When did that happen?" and, "Wait a minute, why have all the halflings been starving themselves all of a sudden. Wait, I know. It's 'the new and improved' look of D&D!" Some of the new artwork is a bit much. A lot of it is great, but I'm not entirely used to this "new look."

Maybe I'm living in the past, but I think the overall D&D artwork has hit a slump. Too many liberties are being taken. It's like D&D art has entered the 21st century, but D&D itself shouldn't be illustrated that way. From Elminster's new haircut to halflings looking like tiny elves, I'm not buying it. I'll buy the books, of course, but I find myself groaning over the art at times.
Kuje31
10-12-03, 08:39 PM Originally posted by Crust
Eh... I miss Elmore and Easley.

I remember looking through the new 3E books and asking myself, "Now, why is everyone's shield asymmetrical now When did that happen?" and, "Wait a minute, why have all the halflings been starving themselves all of a sudden. Wait, I know. It's 'the new and improved' look of D&D!" Some of the new artwork is a bit much. A lot of it is great, but I'm not entirely used to this "new look."

Maybe I'm living in the past, but I think the overall D&D artwork has hit a slump. Too many liberties are being taken. It's like D&D art has entered the 21st century, but D&D itself shouldn't be illustrated that way. From Elminster's new haircut to halflings looking like tiny elves, I'm not buying it. I'll buy the books, of course, but I find myself groaning over the art at times.

All I have to say is Here! Here! To true. :(
The White Sorcerer
10-12-03, 08:56 PM Originally posted by Zanan
But one cannot have Todd Lockwood or Sam Wood all the time ...

Yeah, and that's sad. Lockwood is THE best artist in the world ever. Sam Wood is a pretty close second.
Sirius_Black
10-12-03, 11:42 PM Originally posted by Crust
Maybe I'm living in the past, but I think the overall D&D artwork has hit a slump.

I concur although the Underdark art is an improvement over some of the art in other WOTC publications.
Alrunic Silverfyre
10-12-03, 11:52 PM I guess I am the oddball here. I enjoy the new Forgotten Realms art but don't care for the general DnD product art that is being released. Races of Faerun was a masterpiece if you ask me, artwise.

2nd Edition art from Forgotten Realms products was superb. I miss it...what I don't miss is the 2E art from the core books. Blargh...it was horrid.
Another Gnome
10-13-03, 12:45 AM It's like D&D art has entered the 21st century, but D&D itself shouldn't be illustrated that way.

I agree to a certain point, but D&D and FR in particular is early Reneissance rather than Middle Ages. A mixture of DaVinci's sketches for his "crazy" inventions and more traditional art seems suitable enough to the era. And who's to say Elminster should care about the latest hair fashion in a backwater dump like Shadowdale when he can instead visit Waterdeep or an outer plane or two for more radical ideas? ;)
Crust
10-13-03, 07:20 AM Originally posted by Another Gnome
I agree to a certain point, but D&D and FR in particular is early Reneissance rather than Middle Ages. A mixture of DaVinci's sketches for his "crazy" inventions and more traditional art seems suitable enough to the era. And who's to say Elminster should care about the latest hair fashion in a backwater dump like Shadowdale when he can instead visit Waterdeep or an outer plane or two for more radical ideas? ;)

I see your point, and I agree.
davethebrave371
10-13-03, 01:58 PM I think that the old art had an appeal that this art doesn't have, and vice versa. Personally, I do agree that halflings look a little weird. They should be more plump, and I don't like the pointed ear thing. They should like like rosey-cheeked human children with sideburns (for men) or robust bosoms (for women). But, on the other hand, now they have a chance to be badass! I think over all, it's good so that those who like the old art can say, "But this is what they're like if they're raised on the streets of a seedy metropolis, little to eat, no family but the local gang of thugs. Tough mofos." I think it's good to see both sides of something, even if you don't like one of the sides.

Overall, I think that the new art is better, because, as Crust said, it's gone into the 21st Century...and I think D&D has always been there. D&D is timeless, it's a form of acting that anyone can do. It's a way to get together with friends and enjoy good food, good drink and good times. It's a way to get a little (arguably) non-addictive release from life, a way to escape into a world of your friend's invention, or invent a world for your friend's escapism. You can be who you want to be, who you'd never want to be, and who you never even thought of before. You can create a world with your beliefs and philosophies, or one with opposite views to your own, or both to make things interesting. It's a game of creation, it's a game of introspection, it's a game of interaction, but most of all, it's just plain fun. And that can never get old. It doesn't matter what art is where and why. The art can change with the times, but the spirit of fun can never be ruined unless you let it be ruined.
RhoPhiGamma
10-13-03, 02:14 PM Nowadays, whenever I see someone use the words "Great", "Art", and "WotC" I can't help but thinkg of the pictures of the races in Unapprochable East and think: "What, is he NUTS?!?!" :eek:

That said, alot of the art Underdark is quite nice.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
davethebrave371 10-12-03, 01:36 AM	:OMG!Is it just me, or is the art (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ag/20031011a) in WotC books getting better and better? I don't know who this new guy is, or if he's an old guy with a new flare, but some of that art is not only drop-dead gorgeous, but it alone makes me want to purchase Underdark. And that's a gaming first for me. The lighting, the mood, the wonderful colours...sometimes there's so much beauty in the world...the world of Faerun anyway. :D
Ryltar Swordsong 10-12-03, 02:00 AM	This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ud_gallery/52100_CN.jpg) looks cool. Arachnemancer (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ud_gallery/52079_CN.jpg) is good too.
Yokinobu 10-12-03, 02:07 AM	I liked the Races Group 1, 2, and 3. I think it looked darkly detailed, and the chitine there looks much realistic than the chitine in Monsters of Faerun. I wish my favorite artist, Wayne Reynolds, had had a part in it, but now that I think about it, the only FR source I've seen his art in is Monsters of Faerun.
Tempus665 10-12-03, 03:45 AM	The art is wonderful :D I think Wayne Reynolds is very good at drawing monsters and such, but I don“t think he should do Faerūnian concept art :tiphat:
Zanan 10-12-03, 04:36 AM	Well, as the saying goes ... suum cuique. Some of the art is first class, but there are again (as with RoF) some pics in there who doesn't look at all FR to me. Or ... they absolutly do not met my expectations about some creatures. But one cannot have Larry Elmore, Todd Lockwood or Sam Wood all the time ...
davethebrave371 10-12-03, 04:39 PM	Originally posted by Ryltar Swordsong This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ud_gallery/52100_CN.jpg) looks cool. Arachnemancer (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ud_gallery/52079_CN.jpg) is good too. drools Yeah, I love the Arachnemancer...the lighting is perfect.
knightserpent 10-12-03, 08:12 PM	How about the Faerzress-infused Minotaur! I love it. It isn't as good as some of the other art. Especially the pic titled Menzo.. Wonderful all of it, really. :love:
Crust 10-12-03, 08:36 PM	Eh... I miss Elmore and Easley. I remember looking through the new 3E books and asking myself, "Now, why is everyone's shield asymmetrical now? When did that happen?" and, "Wait a minute, why have all the halflings been starving themselves all of a sudden. Wait, I know. It's 'the new and improved' look of D&D!" Some of the new artwork is a bit much. A lot of it is great, but I'm not entirely used to this "new look." Maybe I'm living in the past, but I think the overall D&D artwork has hit a slump. Too many liberties are being taken. It's like D&D art has entered the 21st century, but D&D itself shouldn't be illustrated that way. From Elminster's new haircut to halflings looking like tiny elves, I'm not buying it. I'll buy the books, of course, but I find myself groaning over the art at times.
Kuje31 10-12-03, 08:39 PM	Originally posted by Crust Eh... I miss Elmore and Easley. I remember looking through the new 3E books and asking myself, "Now, why is everyone's shield asymmetrical now When did that happen?" and, "Wait a minute, why have all the halflings been starving themselves all of a sudden. Wait, I know. It's 'the new and improved' look of D&D!" Some of the new artwork is a bit much. A lot of it is great, but I'm not entirely used to this "new look." Maybe I'm living in the past, but I think the overall D&D artwork has hit a slump. Too many liberties are being taken. It's like D&D art has entered the 21st century, but D&D itself shouldn't be illustrated that way. From Elminster's new haircut to halflings looking like tiny elves, I'm not buying it. I'll buy the books, of course, but I find myself groaning over the art at times. All I have to say is Here! Here! To true. :(
The White Sorcerer 10-12-03, 08:56 PM	Originally posted by Zanan But one cannot have Todd Lockwood or Sam Wood all the time ... Yeah, and that's sad. Lockwood is THE best artist in the world ever. Sam Wood is a pretty close second.
Sirius_Black 10-12-03, 11:42 PM	Originally posted by Crust Maybe I'm living in the past, but I think the overall D&D artwork has hit a slump. I concur although the Underdark art is an improvement over some of the art in other WOTC publications.
Alrunic Silverfyre 10-12-03, 11:52 PM	I guess I am the oddball here. I enjoy the new Forgotten Realms art but don't care for the general DnD product art that is being released. Races of Faerun was a masterpiece if you ask me, artwise. 2nd Edition art from Forgotten Realms products was superb. I miss it...what I don't miss is the 2E art from the core books. Blargh...it was horrid.
Another Gnome 10-13-03, 12:45 AM	It's like D&D art has entered the 21st century, but D&D itself shouldn't be illustrated that way. I agree to a certain point, but D&D and FR in particular is early Reneissance rather than Middle Ages. A mixture of DaVinci's sketches for his "crazy" inventions and more traditional art seems suitable enough to the era. And who's to say Elminster should care about the latest hair fashion in a backwater dump like Shadowdale when he can instead visit Waterdeep or an outer plane or two for more radical ideas? ;)
Crust 10-13-03, 07:20 AM	Originally posted by Another Gnome I agree to a certain point, but D&D and FR in particular is early Reneissance rather than Middle Ages. A mixture of DaVinci's sketches for his "crazy" inventions and more traditional art seems suitable enough to the era. And who's to say Elminster should care about the latest hair fashion in a backwater dump like Shadowdale when he can instead visit Waterdeep or an outer plane or two for more radical ideas? ;) I see your point, and I agree.
davethebrave371 10-13-03, 01:58 PM	I think that the old art had an appeal that this art doesn't have, and vice versa. Personally, I do agree that halflings look a little weird. They should be more plump, and I don't like the pointed ear thing. They should like like rosey-cheeked human children with sideburns (for men) or robust bosoms (for women). But, on the other hand, now they have a chance to be badass! I think over all, it's good so that those who like the old art can say, "But this is what they're like if they're raised on the streets of a seedy metropolis, little to eat, no family but the local gang of thugs. Tough mofos." I think it's good to see both sides of something, even if you don't like one of the sides. Overall, I think that the new art is better, because, as Crust said, it's gone into the 21st Century...and I think D&D has always been there. D&D is timeless, it's a form of acting that anyone can do. It's a way to get together with friends and enjoy good food, good drink and good times. It's a way to get a little (arguably) non-addictive release from life, a way to escape into a world of your friend's invention, or invent a world for your friend's escapism. You can be who you want to be, who you'd never want to be, and who you never even thought of before. You can create a world with your beliefs and philosophies, or one with opposite views to your own, or both to make things interesting. It's a game of creation, it's a game of introspection, it's a game of interaction, but most of all, it's just plain fun. And that can never get old. It doesn't matter what art is where and why. The art can change with the times, but the spirit of fun can never be ruined unless you let it be ruined.
RhoPhiGamma 10-13-03, 02:14 PM	Nowadays, whenever I see someone use the words "Great", "Art", and "WotC" I can't help but thinkg of the pictures of the races in Unapprochable East and think: "What, is he NUTS?!?!" :eek: That said, alot of the art Underdark is quite nice.