HOME | DD
Jerome-K-Moore β QUEST FOR CAMELOT: BLADEBEAK
Published: 2007-04-14 00:23:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 11187; Favourites: 195; Downloads: 1539
Redirect to original
Description
WB Promotional Art, Bladebeak, QUEST FOR CAMELOT.This illustration (after revisions) was part of the Teaser Poster Campaign, appearing in advance of the feature film, and the official movie poster. I provided pencil art and shading, while the final painting was done by artist extraordinaire, David Edward Byrd.
Related content
Comments: 53
Art thief alert.Β It's best to file a DCMA report to take down the stolen art. He will only block you and hide your comment if you post requesting him to take your art down.
help.deviantart.com/dmca/
whiplash198.deviantart.com/artβ¦
π: 0 β©: 0
This was a great film that sadly hasn't garnered as much attention as it deserves. And Bladebeak is one awesome bird.
π: 0 β©: 0
This guy was the only part of that movie I both remember and like.
π: 0 β©: 0
Bladebeak! XD I looooved him. Very cute work here! I love this
Faaaving
π: 0 β©: 0
wow, this is traditional? That's sick nasty. What medium did you use?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, as I stated, I just provided the pencil illustration, and the tonal study for the painter, David Byrd, who I presume was using acrylics and airbrush.
π: 0 β©: 0
Man i really need to find this movie again. It was soo good.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hiya, Dawn, luv!
Thank you! Cheers!
π: 0 β©: 1
Been a while I know
π: 0 β©: 0
Just ignore this one, I can't spell worth a dime.
π: 0 β©: 1
But you can't spell Nick without "I-N-K."
π: 0 β©: 1
True. Very true.
π: 0 β©: 0
Love it! That was such a great cartoon! Saw it in the theatres when I was a kid.
π: 0 β©: 0
That's so cool to watch. ^^ I always liked Bladebeak in the movie, found it funny he was voiced by Jaleel White.
I like the texture to this drawing. How was it coloured? Digitally or with something else?
π: 0 β©: 1
This is a pretty poor scan, from a bad photocopy. It has a bit of a moirΓ© effect going on.
But this illustration was painted "old-school," as the "kids" here seem to repeatedly refer to all things not digital.
Renowned artist David Byrd used airbrush, and acrylic paints, if I remember correctly. We also collaborated similarly on a series of WIZARD OF OZ collectors plates. I rendered a detailed tonal study of the main characters in pencil, and he finished them all in paint, and colored pencil. I've posted the Dorothy pencil study in my gallery here: [link] Maybe I'll post Mr. Byrd's final version.
It's funny to refer to airbrush as "old-school," since it used to occupy the revolutionary place of the computer just a few decades ago. It, too, was regarded as a "cheat" by purists, a shortcut unworthy of consideration by the serious artist.
Now a new generation pushes buttons to create art, the Digital Age, and they seeingly look down their noses at the older, clunkier tools. I know they don't mean any harm, but personally, I think it comes across as a little ignorant, and disrespectful. This topic was discussed at length in one of my earlier journal entries. It was a doozy! LOL!
The "traditional" tools are far from obsolete. In fact, I think their usage more firmly grounds an artist in the fundamentals of art, and the tangible factor of the physical materials connects an artist more directly, and intimately with the creation.
I prefer it. But I do still intend to learn the digital option. I hope to strike a proper balance between the two.
π: 0 β©: 1
I have great respect for people who can colour stuff "old-school". I have experimented a little bit with painting stuff, but not with great results and I wasn't encouraged to continue the experiment because my mum would come upstairs and say: "What's that awfull smell?"
"It's paint mum."
"It smells horribly, we're all gonna get high. Clean up this mess."
... And thus ended my experimentation days with paint.
Not just that... But it's expensive... Paint, and all the material is. Computer colouring is... free? And has great results. I'm not saying computer colouring says a lot about skills, but it's usually nice and hard to mess up. Perfect for non-artists like myself who just want to draw nice stuff and hopefully spark the imagination of the people who look at the drawings.
π: 0 β©: 1
Negatives and Positives: the descriptive fabric of our universe, physically, philosophically, spiritually.
Sure, there's expense, fumes, mess, unforgiveness of error, on and on... These are the Negative realities, and they help form the basis for the argument of the pragmatist. Of course, they merit consideration. Of course they do.
However, the Positives still exist, and bestow their own rewards. A deeper appreciation comes from hard work, both for the process, and for the product. You save up your money to get that ideal brush, paint, canvas, or easel, and with special pride, you value it more than its actual price. You study how to mix and measure, and in the end, you make the right color for yourself, with your own hands. You look at your dirty clothes and hands as you prepare to clean them, every bit of grime a testament to your tangible creation, a connection similar to the farmer who cherishes the fertile soil clinging to his hands, his connection to the Earth. You smell the drying paint on the canvas, your REAL artwork that you can touch, and on which you can see every REAL stroke. Your heart swells with more pride than any digital pixelation can ever truly match. You have created an ORIGINAL... something that actually exists on this three-dimensional plane WITH you, that is a part of you without any electronic filtering... something that traditionally links you with all the great masters that have gone before, throughout the history of art. It is as literal, and as fragile as you are.
Although it may be a one-time price you pay for a computer color, paint, ink, photoshop program, it's hardly free. Nothing in life is. It comes down to what you value most, and what you're really getting for your money... if you truly perceive what is important beyond the superficial.
The computer is largely a device that serves convenience. It has its place. Creativity, with a view toward Commercialism, must acknowledge and seek out convenience. But the raw, and purest form of Creativity has no such concerns. Thankfully.
π: 0 β©: 0
He's more hard to catch than regular fowl.
THIS loose chicken apparently has a sharp edge, allowing him to easily CUT corners.
Hyuk! Hyuk!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I was trying to do a little Thin Lizzy innuendo, but no matter.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thin Lizzy?!! I knew HER! She got married, and she Fat Lizzy now. LOL!
π: 0 β©: 1
you rude to tha poor gall... tsk tsk tsk
π: 0 β©: 0
Yup that's indeed the way to color. After looking at this illustration, I really can't stand even barely looking at the CRAPPY COLOR.
I think the difference is quite obvious.
Who would have thought that WB would be turning into that kind of company.. Where quality is secondary to something else? amazing
π: 0 β©: 1
In this age of the big conglommerate, so concerned with cutting costs and pleasing investors in the immediate short-run, it's hardly surprising. It's an industry after all, and it's always been about profitable business. But in the last decade or so, Warner Bros has become more and more blindly sacrificing with regard to its former standards of quality. They've been green-lighting curious film projects, proposing odd re-envisionings of classic properties, and uncharacteristically aping other studios' successes and styles, namely Disney, of which QUEST FOR CAMELOT is an obvious, and disastrous example.
Quantity has currently prevailed over Quality.
π: 0 β©: 1
By the way I actually thought before that Quest For Camelot was a disney toon 
Too bad that many companies actually go that way.. They just milk their own reputation that has been built by previous hard working generations, for short term profit. Wonder what they're gonna do when their reputation fades so much that there won't be nothing to milk 
π: 0 β©: 2
Usually, the innocent laborers get laid off, and the executives get "golden parachutes" with large monetary departure packages, while the company goes into debt. Then the company is bought by another corporation, greedy execs come in to make big deals, and the whole process repeats itself.
Business School 101:
Build company. Court investors. Profit. Over-market. Bloat. Let investors have too much influence. Run company into the ground. Sell off properties. Lay off workers. Take the money and run.
The wonderful game of Capitalism. Thanks for playing.
π: 0 β©: 0
Usually, the innocent laborers get laid off, and the executives get "golden parachutes" with large monetary departure packages, while the company goes into debt. Then the company is bought by another corporation, greedy execs come in to make big deals, and the whole process repeats itself.
Business School 101:
Build company. Court investors. Profit. Over-market. Bloat. Let investors have too much influence. Run company into the ground. Sell off properties. Lay off workers. Take the money and run.
The wonderful game of Capitalism. Thanks for playing.
π: 0 β©: 0
At least someone there knows how to color the right way!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yup.
But sadly, not there anymore. Whether or not the lessons of our legacy will influence those who come after us, only time will tell.
π: 0 β©: 0
Did that guy colour this one, too? I was just thinking that the colours here really don't look too shabby at all 
π: 0 β©: 1
Negative, z00t. This is the right way to do it. Otherwise, I would NOT have posted it here in my main gallery.
Check out the whole saga regarding this in a comment answer in my scraps.
π: 0 β©: 0
That is cool! I like the pose! And David did a great job coloring it ^_^
π: 0 β©: 1
He did indeed. You should read about all the drama behind it when you get the chance. I posted a detailed account in a comment answer on "CRAPPY COLOR" in my Scraps Gallery.
π: 0 β©: 1
ohh...drama! *clicks*
π: 0 β©: 0
Awesome shading and pose. The overall picture's really great.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hmm...
Your siggy.
If not that one... Which one?
π: 0 β©: 1
That one, over there.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>