Comments: 24
JasonFrost7 [2018-12-01 02:39:44 +0000 UTC]
wonderful
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ChristopherLeif [2016-07-14 03:28:00 +0000 UTC]
I see the point about the glow. That was actually more common in the earliest editions of Dungeons & Dragons. Since 3.X it's not been used as much. Still, for purposes of illustrations, it's really the only way that I can think of to make the magical nature of an item or being visually evident.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
ChristopherLeif In reply to ChristopherLeif [2016-08-28 15:08:04 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, maybe so, but Jackson's movies are still the best cinematic treatment of that book (and the Lord of the Rings) to date.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
ChristopherLeif In reply to ChristopherLeif [2016-08-28 15:04:21 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, maybe so, but Jackson's movies are still the best cinematic treatment of those books to date.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
BryanSyme In reply to ChristopherLeif [2016-07-14 14:17:58 +0000 UTC]
I can think of many other ways. They're just not so blatant. To me it seems like a visual copout. The one Ring didn't glow. Neither did Storm Bringer or Excalibur.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
ChristopherLeif In reply to BryanSyme [2016-08-05 21:03:08 +0000 UTC]
Well, Stormbringer didn't exactly need to glow with all the moaning, slurping and other vocalization as 'he' sucked down souls. The enchanted nature of that blade was obvious in other ways. The 'special' nature of Excalibur was also patently obvious because of its being held aloft from the bosom of the waters by a disembodied arm. Admittedly, these are much more creative than just glowing, and it wouldn't take a great deal of creativity to replace the annoying glow with some other feature like runes, either being too heavy or too light for its perceived mass, or being made of a strange metal or other, possibly much more freaky, substance.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanSyme In reply to ChristopherLeif [2016-08-06 15:39:43 +0000 UTC]
Totally agree. Although many of those options are not so easy to illustrate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
NecroTechno In reply to BryanSyme [2016-08-05 19:26:13 +0000 UTC]
Well, in the movies you got pretty glowing text on the One Ring when exposed to fire...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanSyme In reply to NecroTechno [2016-08-05 19:54:00 +0000 UTC]
Yes, and we all saw where stuff like that led Peter Jackson.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
ChristopherLeif In reply to BryanSyme [2016-08-05 20:14:11 +0000 UTC]
You lost me here - where did it lead him, exactly? The Elvish script on the ring that exposure to fire caused to appear is well-documented Tolkien canon.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanSyme In reply to ChristopherLeif [2016-08-06 15:44:14 +0000 UTC]
The hobbit movies. With such a huge overreliance on CGI.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
MarcRadle In reply to MarcRadle [2016-02-22 02:14:50 +0000 UTC]
Yep, one and the same ...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
MarcRadle In reply to BryanSyme [2016-02-24 01:24:32 +0000 UTC]
It sure is - in all my gaudy, 'glowy' glory ...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
AquaticJM [2016-02-19 18:31:04 +0000 UTC]
The glowing was actually a nice touch! Really cool piece!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanSyme In reply to AquaticJM [2016-02-20 17:05:34 +0000 UTC]
Come on, don't prove my art directory right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
BryanSyme In reply to Birdtear [2016-02-20 17:06:14 +0000 UTC]
Thank you! I kind of think it looks a bit too gaudy myself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BryanSyme In reply to Birdtear [2016-02-21 00:10:31 +0000 UTC]
Well overall, the colors on the character are too saturated for my liking. He's supposed to be a magical thief, but to me he looks more like a court jester in that outfit. And I am not a fan of making things glow to show that their magic. It seems to Disney.
But people seem to like that sort of thing and it sells. So I can't fault my client for wanting it that way.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1