The one thing that seemed to stay pretty consistent in DL were those original dragon designs. Now the reference to the giant blue horn in the DLCS and the Venom Draconian with the 3.5 Black Dragon head are kind of muddying that up, especially since we see that the Black on the cover of the DLA Boxed Set is back to the original design.
Did WOTC request that DL make the change?
Or was it just the "Lockwood" effect? I know he set the precedent somewhat for the change with some transitionary designs between 2nd and 3rd Edition like the Bronze Dragon on the cover of the Annotated Chronicles that would later become the 3.0/3.5 MM Red Dragon and the rhino horned blue on the cover of Chaos Spawn.
Yeah, the original dragons had a certain DL feel to them, but they were all essentially the same dragon model with a pallette swap.
Originally posted by talinthas
i dont know that this is necessarily a bad thing. the two paintings you mention (annotated chron and chaos spawn) are my two favorite DL art pieces, so going that way isnt bad =)
Well Lockwood can make a dragon wyrmling look badass so what do you expect?
Originally posted by talinthas
Yeah, the original dragons had a certain DL feel to them, but they were all essentially the same dragon model with a pallette swap.
Nah, they definitely all had a unique style. At least the chromatics. If you were to show me a black and white rendition of that old DL piece with Laurana chained up in front of Takhisis I'd instantly be able to tell you which dragon was what color.
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
Depends on what artist you looked at as to what dragons looked like what. Elmore's dragons all had the same features....you could just interchange the color of scales.....And to me that sucked.
For some reason Elmore gets a bum rap for this but for all of his work in the 80's on 1st Edition DL its completely untrue. If you look at the covers to the original Chronicles, none of the dragons had the same features. And the white dragon attacking the ice boat looked different still.
Nowadays, yeah they pretty much all look alike. His red on the cover of the DM Screen looks pretty much the same as his blues, and most of his dragons now tend to be a bit on the pudgy stick-legged side.
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
I tend to like the DLCS dragons...except the brass..for some odd reason I think it looks goofy....not bad....just goofy.
LOL, I actually forgot about the interior art of the dragons in the DLCS! Probably since most of them are so bad they really should just be dismissed.
Stawicki's dragons on the new covers are pretty consistent with old DL, and Elmore's are all more or less based on the old style, or at least based on the old blue, but the text in the DLCS suggests that they've revised them to be the new 3.5 Lockwood designs, as does Jason Engles art for the Draconian Nobles.
I'm still curious as to why the design team made the change. The original DL dragons weren't modelled after the art in the 1E MM (thank God), so I don't see why its necessary now.
As for the interior art....Like I said before....just because you didnt like it doesnt make it all bad....Art is subjective really...all my statements about the artists work are totally opinion. Its all good....just some of it isnt what fits my own personal vision of Krynn
Originally posted by Kai Lord
Bronze Dragon on the cover of the Annotated Chronicles that would later become the 3.0/3.5 MM Red Dragon[/i]
Actually, I think it was a gold dragon that later became the 3rd Edition brass dragon.
I like the Lockwood dragons. I don't like Elmore dragons. Stawicki dragons are okay, but that's because of his overall art quality, not the design of the dragons.
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
Okay....the dragons on the original chronicles covers all looked the same to me...identical nearly
Hmm....I think we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. heh heh
To me...every dragon on the cover of the original mid-80's Chronicles (not Elmore's second set from the early 90's) all have their own style. Granted the bodies are quite similar (except the red looksmuch more massive). But the intricate designs are each different.
DIfferent enough that if I recieved black and white pictures of the early dragons, I could tell you which were which just from facial features.
But I don't think that lasted very long. The comics kept the same design features...(even the metallics that they could...the silvers looked like Caldwell's "Golden General" and the coppers looked like Elmore's "Dragons of War" and the brass looked like Parkinson's "Dragons of Hope.") I'm not sure where the gold and bronze designs came from...but they had their own look too.
But yes...aside from facial features, the Dragonlance dragons all had similar bodies and shapes...which was fine with me...it gave them all a connection (one thing I don't like about the 3e metallic dragons).
One of these days I'm going to scan my comic pics in and make "Arek Brimstone's Definative Canonity of Dragon Designs." Of course it will never end up on the Nexus...cause who really cares what I think. But when debating this sort of thing...I can just send an e-mail with the picture as opposed to trying to describe what I"m talking about. :D
Lockwood takes care to give the dragons a grace, power and ferocity that shows through the biology of the creature. Elmore's dragons, to me, don't feel like they are going to leap of the page. Lockwood's definately do, because the details of the dragons look functional and realistic. What especially adds to the realism is that Lockwood is consistent in how he draws the dragons, and it is smart of WotC to insist that other artists follow suit when drawing their dragons in official products.
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
I totally agree with Ferratus here....The uniformity that WotC has with the way dragons are portrayed is awesome.
You mean like the dragon art WOTC's art director chose for the DLCS? ;)
As far as the artwork in the DLCS: Yeah, some of it is kinda bad, some is ok. But there's a pretty thick line between what I would call art or just a drawing.
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
The uniformity that WotC has with the way dragons are portrayed is awesome.
Agreed. One should be able to tell a B&W gold dragon and a B&W bronze dragon apart, no matter who drew them.
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
I totally agree with Ferratus here....The uniformity that WotC has with the way dragons are portrayed is awesome.
I love the 3e chromatic dragons...they look great (especially the black). And I like the Silver and Bronze dragons...but beyond those two, I don't like the metalic dragons. (although they're all just a little too annorexic looking for my tastes. I know alot of people thinking Elmore's look bloated...and I do realize that dragons are neither real, nor necessarily reptiles...but when was the last time you saw a lizard shaped like those dragons? I think Elmore does a good job of making the bodies look...well...actually more snake-ish than lizard-ish...oh well...)
Anyway, that being said (that I like Lockwood's 3e dragons for the most part)...they just aren't Dragonlance dragons, to me. And although I have a very specific view on what I view is the quintisential dragonlance dragon for each sub-type...I have a very wide berth of what is acceptable as a DL dragon. Meaning...that of all the dragons that have been painted, very few have I said, "Damn! Okay, that's going to be deleted from my memory as being portrayed as a dragon on Krynn.
Lockwood of course has my favorite DL painting...and my favorite dragon: "Chaos Spawn" and "15th Anniversary Dragonlance Classics," respectively.
(I'm just full of problems, huh?)
Originally posted by Serena DarkMyst
That'd kinda be cool Brim. Id love to wax intellectual with ya some more on the subject, but I dont think the board is the place to do it. If you wanna discuss things a little more just let me know and Ill drop ya an email addy.
Sounds good.
I'll try and get that stuff scanned in this week. (forgot to do it this weekend)
Originally posted by Brimstone
and I do realize that dragons are neither real, nor necessarily reptiles...but when was the last time you saw a lizard shaped like those dragons?
See that's the thing. Elmore's dragons look like a picture of a dragon, and are fairly nice to look at. However, I do not see the muscle and bone in Elmore's dragons like I do with Lockwoods. Lockwood's dragons exhibit their anatomy and biology very well and very realistically. They look like living creatures rather than a picture of a dragon.
Anyway, that being said (that I like Lockwood's 3e dragons for the most part)...they just aren't Dragonlance dragons, to me. And although I have a very specific view on what I view is the quintisential dragonlance dragon for each sub-type...I have a very wide berth of what is acceptable as a DL dragon.
I've never really paid attention the art in Dragonlance sourcebooks (I do not own either Masters of Dragonlance Art books for example). So I never really got caught up in viewing dragonlance dragons a certain way. I went the other way viewing Lockwood's dragons first, then Elmore's dragons in the DLCS, then Elmore's dragons in general. I have to say, Lockwood's are much more graceful, powerful and meancing than Elmore's.
Originally posted by ferratus
See that's the thing. Elmore's dragons look like a picture of a dragon, and are fairly nice to look at. However, I do not see the muscle and bone in Elmore's dragons like I do with Lockwoods. Lockwood's dragons exhibit their anatomy and biology very well and very realistically. They look like living creatures rather than a picture of a dragon.
Well, to me...the original design of DL dragons are much more appealing because they look more realistic to me (keeping in mind we are talking about dragons). They have bodies like lizards. Kinda bloated looking, long skinny legs, shorter skinny arms, long slender tails.
Now Lockwood's 3e dragons look very alien to me. They have non-existant stomaches, super large musculature, short stocky legs, long powerful arms.
Don't get me wrong...I really like the 3e chromatic dragons (and the bronze and sliver), they're bad a$$ mo's, that's for sure, and really cool...but, like I said, they're very alien to me. Which, maybe that's how it should be.
But to me, I prefer the more lizard-ish looking dragons of old. I guess it's just a matter of taste...and we're most likely not ever going to agree on it.
The only thing I don't like about Elmore's dragons are how the wings connect to the body...I do think there needs to be more musculature showing through like in the 3e dragons.