Craig J. Ries wrote:
>> 2. If they'd kept Elmore as the core artist instead of switching to
>> Easley;
>> 3. If they'd kept the old logo instead of introducing a new Fifth Age
>> logo
>
> You're telling me you wouldn't buy a DL product because of the cover art
> or the logo? :)
They do matter to me, actually. But what I'm saying here is that the
overall combined effect presented DRAGONLANCE: FIFTH AGE as a totally
separate brand.
Remember that Larry Elmore did the covers of all the core novels until the
Rabe Trilogy. I think changing that was a huge error, because, although I
have things that I like and dislike about Elmore, no other artist's art is
so definitively Dragonlancey. I think the prevailing policy of sticking
with Stawicki to do core covers is a huge error. Frankly, the exterior
presentation of a book lends a lot to one's pride in owning it, and I find
Stawicki's cheap computer-generated art greatly lessens my interest in a
book.
Even Easley, who I generally admire, and who was one of the original,
definitive DL artists, clearly modified his style to create an all-new
look-and-feel for the Fifth Age line, away from the original DL style
established by Elmore, Parkinson, Easley, and Caldwell all imitating each
other.
And I think the new logo sucks, and I hope WotC takes the op****tunity of
the 4e branding transition to go back to the old DL logo, or at least
something similar and as classy, without the retarded wyvern.
> Well, as you just mentioned in another post, Knaak wrote what appeared
> to be a 'core trilogy', but I don't think anybody is taking it as such.
> At this point, it seems most will never accept something from anybody
> other than W&H as 'core'.
Wrong. What I said in the other post was that Knaak's trilogy was
MARKETED,
at first, as core, when in fact, if you read it, it is no such thing. I
was
looking forward to it, and I was completely ready to accept it as core. I
do accept Rabe's trilogy as core, though I don't like it.
I think what happened (just speculation) is that Knaak's trilogy WAS
supposed to be new core. If you recall, at the time, Weis and Perrin were
going to write the Taladas Trilogy. Well, things changed, and Weis took
over the core, relegating minotaur plot to the sidelines, and giving the
Taladas Trilogy to Pierson.
And note that I don't list The Lost Chronicles as core, even though it's
W&H. It doesn't match the criterion of advancing the main story. Love it
or
hate it, DL has a main story, and love it or hate it, Rabe first trilogy
was part of that. I just think it would have been easier for the m***** to
swallow if it hadn't been so poorly written.
> I'm just saying that for others, such as myself, DL can encompass a bit
> more of what's out there and remain "Dragonlancey" than what Morten
> seems to allowed for himself.
Yeah, it can for you or me, but Morten is free to as narrow or broad a
definition of Dragonlancey for himself as he pleases. :-)
--Falconer
|
