Aaron Sims concept art

[Cavatica]

Holy cow! Sorry if this is a repost, but I just caught one of this guy's pieces on Grey Bear's blog and holy hell, people, but THIS is CONCEPT art:

Lessa Impressing Ramoth (http://www.aaron-sims.com/creatures/creatures-image-02.html)
Jaxom and Ruth (http://www.aaron-sims.com/creatures/creatures-image-01.html)

I mean, damn, people. This goes right to my imagination's G-spot.

[Brenda]

Wow. :faint:

Baby Ramoth doesn't look quite right to me, but the overall scene... just, wow.

[Zarkon]

I would like to know just when in the series was Jaxom hot? He always irritated me., but if he looked like that? I'd be okay with some slight annoyance. :faint:

[Bronze-Dragonrider]

Yeah, this has been around for a while, and there are a couple others with that set. I think it was determined that this was for a previous Pern project.

The headknobs looks a little too antennaeish, but the overall art, lighting, and atmosphere is simply stunning. If only there were more out there like that...

[Wolfegar]

This is the first I've see it and I like it! :bouncy:

[Bamy]

Nice art, but have seen it before and have it saved to my hard drive somewhere or other.

[dragonkat62]

Mmm... the overall effect is good....but i agree ramoth does not look quite right.... the proportions are wrong she looks more t.rex than dragon.... and ruth's poor head looks like it belongs on a snake!... sorry :( i am being too critical .... I will shut up and go away now :) Oh WHEN will we hear about pern movie/series? or has it sunk?...
Hi Wolfgar.. long time no chat :)

[Wolfegar]

*Snippys.*

Hi Wolfgar.. long time no chat :)
:wave:

[Kath]

http://www.aaron-sims.com/landscapes/landscapes-image-03.html

Have you seen this one?

[Cavatica]

http://www.aaron-sims.com/landscapes/landscapes-image-03.html

Have you seen this one?
No! How beautiful!

[Kath]

I've just done a quick site-search for 'pern' and come up with these as well:

Hatchling, obscured: http://www.aaron-sims.com/other-char/other-char-image-08.html
Clutch: http://www.aaron-sims.com/interiors/interiors-image-01.html

[Dux]

Wow! Those are great. I wish they were available as prints. :sad: I love how Nemorth is included in the Ramoth Impression and the detail on Ruth's wings.

[Dux]

I would like to know just when in the series was Jaxom hot? He always irritated me., but if he looked like that? I'd be okay with some slight annoyance. :faint:

Menolly does comment in The White Dragon that he is supposed to be good looking.

[Mage]

Mmm... the overall effect is good....but i agree ramoth does not look quite right.... the proportions are wrong she looks more t.rex than dragon.... and ruth's poor head looks like it belongs on a snake!... sorry :( i am being too critical .... I will shut up and go away now :) Oh WHEN will we hear about pern movie/series? or has it sunk?...
Hi Wolfgar.. long time no chat :)

To be perfectly fair, Anne did describe the dragons as having relatively tiny forelimbs and huge hind limbs. The bipedal movement in the hatching scene is off; her dragons are described as moving on all four, only sitting up on their hind legs occasionally (mostly when agitated). You also may be forgetting how awkward hatchling dragons were supposed to look in the novels--I recall they were described as being downright ugly during the first Hatching. Apparently, they only grow up pretty.

Personally, I love Ruth's head design except for the knobs. I don't think he'd have markings that dark, though. And I agree, Jaxom is pretty attractive in that picture--but he's still a jerk at times in the books, not to mention Mr. Perfect. To me, Ruth looks just alien enough to make the horselike face a little more conceivable. Although, what happened to the multiple eye facets?

Yes, this is really great concept art (and I've seen only two of these before), but alas, I'm almost 100% positive it isn't for the new film. Given how little we've heard about the new film, I'm more than slightly beginning to believe that the project has already been entirely scrapped. Normally you at least catch occasional news of something that's as big a project as the Pern film should presumably be. We haven't heard a word in years.

[Bronze-Dragonrider]

Years? Plural? I think it's only been just over a year. Some movies take up to a decade to make.

[Mage]

They've had information, I thought, about the movie since, say, 2005, 2006? Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened before. I'm sure /rumors/ have been abounding since then anyway. Guess my job really is driving me crazy.

[Madrigal]

To be perfectly fair, Anne did describe the dragons as having relatively tiny forelimbs and huge hind limbs. The bipedal movement in the hatching scene is off; her dragons are described as moving on all four, only sitting up on their hind legs occasionally (mostly when agitated). You also may be forgetting how awkward hatchling dragons were supposed to look in the novels--I recall they were described as being downright ugly during the first Hatching. Apparently, they only grow up pretty.

I seem to remember descriptions of Faranth and Carenath rearing or occasionally taking a step or two on their hind legs as hatchlings--very awkwardly, as I recall. It's been a long time, though, and I don't have the books. Does anyone else remember?

I rather liked the picture, actually. I thought the awkwardness was cute, and it looked to me like Ramoth had only reared up for a moment to get a better look at Lessa. I also really liked the amount of background detail, with the other hatchlings and dragons on the ledges.

[Mayhem]

Carenath had a 'hop skip gait'
I am sure I remember it being described as kangaroo like somewhere. Sean didn't like it either, cos it made him look ungainly.

[Cheryl]

They've had information, I thought, about the movie since, say, 2005, 2006? Maybe I'm wrong. It's happened before. I'm sure /rumors/ have been abounding since then anyway. Guess my job really is driving me crazy.

The deal with Copperheart was officially announced in late May of 2006.

In Sept 2007, when Anne was at EuroCon, she said that the script is in progress and casting is being thought about (though it sounded like it's not past the thinking stage into actual casting). So it seems that it hasn't just been forgotten, progress is being made, however slowly.

[Dux]

To be perfectly fair, Anne did describe the dragons as having relatively tiny forelimbs and huge hind limbs. .

Where are they described as "relatively tiny"? In Dragonflight Mnemeth's forelimbs and claws are large enough to pick up Lessa and create a cage around her that she couldn't escape from. In The White Dragon they are large enough to dig/tunnel through deep, hard-packed earth.

[Kath]

Where are they described as "relatively tiny"? In Dragonflight Mnemeth's forelimbs and claws are large enough to pick up Lessa and create a cage around her that she couldn't escape from. In The White Dragon they are large enough to dig/tunnel through deep, hard-packed earth.

Everything's relative - they're not small, just smaller. Imagine the size of his hind legs in that case...!

[Mage]

Where are they described as "relatively tiny"? In Dragonflight Mnemeth's forelimbs and claws are large enough to pick up Lessa and create a cage around her that she couldn't escape from. In The White Dragon they are large enough to dig/tunnel through deep, hard-packed earth.

Relative compared to their hindquarters and compared with the anatomy and proportions of what we'd consider to be normal Earth creatures.

Remember Carenath's awkward gait? It's because he had huge hind legs and shorter, weaker forelegs. I say weaker because it seems to me that's why the dragons didn't just hop consistently and easily like a rabbit would (which, incidentally, is not such a disgraceful gait). A rabbit or other hopping quadruped usually has some amount of strength in the forelegs for the purpose of balance and stability. Or maybe it's just that the dragons' backs were awkwardly long which prevented this as well.

Anyway, back on topic, it could be that Ramoth was just supposed to be doing the standing-up-to-get-a-good-look thing (like I said, they're described doing things like that in the books), but to me it just looks like an awkward pose and she's about to take a nosedive into the sand. On the other hand, all of these paintings (and I think some are renders) are way better, artistically and technically, than I could hope to do at this point in time.

[Bronze-Dragonrider]

Remember Carenath's awkward gait? It's because he had huge hind legs and shorter, weaker forelegs. I say weaker because it seems to me that's why the dragons didn't just hop consistently and easily like a rabbit would (which, incidentally, is not such a disgraceful gait).
That's why he thought it looked like an awkward cross between a rabbit and a kangaroo. Because rabbits on their own, as you said, are not particularly ungainly. A kangaroo on the other hand, is outright silly looking when it tries to walk with its forelimbs. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=nt0PnjE_F2E

On the other hand, all of these paintings (and I think some are renders) are way better, artistically and technically, than I could hope to do at this point in time.
Doesn't mean you can't still criticize its weak points ;)

[The Merc]

http://www.aaron-sims.com/images/Chp.3.p3.img.b.jpg

Hmmm... (rub's goatee) Seems familiar...

Where have I seen that face before...

[Cavatica]

...has it not occurred to anyone else that Ramoth's just rearing up on her hindlegs in that picture, probably after having shaken the other girl to death (recall: Before Lessa could blink, it shook the first girl with such violence that her head snapped audibly and she fell limply to the sand), or after having raked the second girl from shoulder to thigh, which she couldn't possibly do unless her claws were up to shoulder height? It looks to me like she's in the middle of dropping down to all fours.

[Bronze-Dragonrider]

If that were the case, wouldn't there be... well, a bloody body on the sands? ;) Unless Ramoth powerfully tossed the girl out of frame...

I don't have any issues with the rearing pose. Overall I think it's beautiful, THE best Pern concept art ever for such a recognizable scene and wonderful composition. But I have issues with certain anatomical features, like the headknobs being too skinny, the eyes are FAR too dark, they should be glowing with color, the forelegs look too long (although being a hatchling, they could very well look very different proportionately to the adults) and humanish, the mouth-line looks a bit odd... somehow it reminds me of an old man :laugh: and the hind legs look a little too dinosaurian.

[Cavatica]

If that were the case, wouldn't there be... well, a bloody body on the sands? ;) Unless Ramoth powerfully tossed the girl out of frame...Illustration doesn't have a lot to do with the literal interpretation of a scene. Even Michael Whelan takes liberties with the character placement, but there aren't a lot of people who'd point to the cover of Dragonsdawn and go, "When the hell was Sorka Hanrahan walking out of a cave, by herself, with firelizards on her arms? Where does the book say she was wearing a yellow jumpsuit? This illustration is total crap!"

I don't have any issues with the rearing pose. Overall I think it's beautiful, THE best Pern concept art ever for such a recognizable scene and wonderful composition. But I have issues with certain anatomical features, like the headknobs being too skinny, the eyes are FAR too dark, they should be glowing with color, the forelegs look too long (although being a hatchling, they could very well look very different proportionately to the adults) and humanish, the mouth-line looks a bit odd... somehow it reminds me of an old man :laugh: and the hind legs look a little too dinosaurian.First of all, I have it on excellent authority that a dragon's headknobs ought to be almost vertical, and antennae-like. Secondly, the line of her mouth is totally reasonable, even if ought to be horsier -- newborns of damn near every species look like old men! They're covered in loose, wrinkled skin and have almost no muscle tone. There are newborn kittens that look like old men.

It's true that she was rendered a bit too reptilian or saurian, but there's never going to be a piece of Pernese artwork that someone isn't going to find some fault with. In 40 years of Pern art, there hasn't been a single piece that Anne has said "Yes, that's my dragons, 100%." So you've got to judge these things on other merits. For sheer dynamism, and for conveying the weight and texture of the scene, this piece is spot on. Spot on. You could reach out and touch that dragon.

[Kath]

Bronzie, if this film ever gets made? Promise me you won't go and see it, unless you've learned how to switch off that part of your head.

Book adaptions aren't made for the fans (it'd be nice if they were, but I doubt you could line up enough of us who'd be 100% pleased with the director's interpretation to fill a whole cinema), they're made for a mass audience. The look of a film isn't ours to decide, in much the same way that cover art isn't the preserve of either author or fans - it's all in the marketing.

[Kath]

Illustration doesn't have a lot to do with the literal interpretation of a scene. Even Michael Whelan takes liberties with the character placement, but there aren't a lot of people who'd point to the cover of Dragonsdawn and go, "When the hell was Sorka Hanrahan walking out of a cave, by herself, with firelizards on her arms? Where does the book say she was wearing a yellow jumpsuit? This illustration is total crap!"

First of all, I have it on excellent authority that a dragon's headknobs ought to be almost vertical, and antennae-like. It's true that she was rendered a bit too reptilian or saurian, but there's never going to be a piece of Pernese artwork that someone isn't going to find some fault with. In 40 years of Pern art, there hasn't been a single piece that Anne has said "Yes, that's my dragons, 100%." So you've got to judge these things on other merits. For sheer dynamism, and for conveying the weight and texture of the scene, this piece is spot on. Spot on. You could reach out and touch that dragon.

Thankyou - we cross-posted, but seem to be making the same point.

[Shalyn]

[COLOR=black]Illustration doesn't have a lot to do with the literal interpretation of a scene. Even Michael Whelan takes liberties with the character placement, but there aren't a lot of people who'd point to the cover of Dragonsdawn and go, "When the hell was Sorka Hanrahan walking out of a cave, by herself, with firelizards on her arms? Where does the book say she was wearing a yellow jumpsuit? This illustration is total crap!"



I seem to remember that very discussion sometime in the past....

However, I've said it before and I'll say it again - that illustration of Ramoth hatching is fantastic. She's adorable in an alien sort of way - exactly how she should be.

[Anareth]

To me, it does look like Ramoth is supposed to be bipedal there--it's the length and angle of the bones in her back leg. But all the ADULT dragons are drawn with basically quadrupedal limbs, so possibly it's just meant to be that gangly-baby stage. They're SUPPOSED to be farily ugly when they hatch.

Also if they're carnivores their mouths need to have a longer, wider, hinge than a horse. A horse doesn't have to open its mouth wide--they crop with their front teeth and their lip, and they chew in back. A carnivore needs to open its mouth wider. Overall I think the heads are horsey enough without being TOO horsey.

[Kaoru]

Holy... I can't get enough of how great the Impression picture and the one of Ruth look. Just... wow. :heart:

[Bronze-Dragonrider]

First of all, I have it on excellent authority that a dragon's headknobs ought to be almost vertical, and antennae-like. Secondly, the line of her mouth is totally reasonable, even if ought to be horsier -- newborns of damn near every species look like old men! They're covered in loose, wrinkled skin and have almost no muscle tone. There are newborn kittens that look like old men.
Good points about the newborns. It just looks like the mouth goes too far back. I've always imagined them with a bit of cheek to their mouths. But the headknobs just look too thin to me. I don't really care about the angle of it, but being so thin just looks weird to me :shrug:

It's true that she was rendered a bit too reptilian or saurian, but there's never going to be a piece of Pernese artwork that someone isn't going to find some fault with. In 40 years of Pern art, there hasn't been a single piece that Anne has said "Yes, that's my dragons, 100%." So you've got to judge these things on other merits. For sheer dynamism, and for conveying the weight and texture of the scene, this piece is spot on. Spot on. You could reach out and touch that dragon.
Absolutely, 100% agreed.

Bronzie, if this film ever gets made? Promise me you won't go and see it, unless you've learned how to switch off that part of your head.

Book adaptions aren't made for the fans (it'd be nice if they were, but I doubt you could line up enough of us who'd be 100% pleased with the director's interpretation to fill a whole cinema), they're made for a mass audience. The look of a film isn't ours to decide, in much the same way that cover art isn't the preserve of either author or fans - it's all in the marketing.
Good grief, I'm not bashing it! I've already said that I love the picture, I'm just saying what parts I don't like. There's a vast different between "It's a wonderful rendering, but I think a couple things look off" and "OMG it doesn't have proper neck ridges! It's arms are too long! It should have more fingers! It doesn't match any descriptions it SUCKS!!!"

I'm sure that I will have gripes when the movie comes out, as I have a VERY strong image in my head of what dragons (among other things in Pern) look like to me, but in a movie I can deal with it, as long as they're not ridiculously off-course. For instance, there are many, many things in Lord of the Rings which I would have done differently, and I've always wondered why the wolves of Isengard look more like hyenas than wolves. But I still greatly admire the films and they remain my favorite films of all time.

My biggest fear with dragons on the big-screen is not really their adherence to the physical attributes, as I'm sure they'll get at least the basics right, but whether or not they look REAL. If they look like living, breathing, functioning creatures that you can get emotionally involved with, with animation and subtle movement that makes it look like it's really there, that makes you forget that you're looking at CGI, I will be satisfied. I'm sick of seeing CGI that's just churned out of the animator's studio with so little inventiveness, imagination, creativity or life. They so often go by the book and don't try new things. Which is why I was so pleased with Davy Jones from PotC, they tried animating a different way, and it turned out breathtakingly realistic. I want to see a dragon that looks like it has weight, that you can see breathing and it's muscles bulge and jiggle as it walks, I want to see a dragon that looks like it's moving of its own accord rather than by an animator's hand. If it looks REAL, then I will be happy, even it it's not exactly as I picture a Pernese dragon in my head. And who knows, if they're good, they might even come up with something better than I imagined.

But you can be sure that I WILL bitch if they do the usual slap-wings-on-a-quadruped, as they usually do in movies/illustrations with 6 limbed dragons. It bothers me to no end to see them put so much time and effort into creating a moving, flying dragon with no thought to how an animal's muscles work. I was laughing at that Discovery Chanel "documentary" on dragons, they supposedly had anatomy experts working on their design, yet they had NO visible flight muscles at all! :rofl2:

[Bronze-Dragonrider]

Also if they're carnivores their mouths need to have a longer, wider, hinge than a horse. A horse doesn't have to open its mouth wide--they crop with their front teeth and their lip, and they chew in back. A carnivore needs to open its mouth wider. Overall I think the heads are horsey enough without being TOO horsey.

I don't think their mouth-lines should look just like a horse's by any means, for the reasons you stated. But the mouth on this one looks like a dinosaur mouth, being so far back, with no cheek at all to it. A lion is a carnivore, but it still has some cheek. And I think dragons would need to have some amount of cheek around their mouths, otherwise crumbling firestone would fall out the sides too easily when they chew.

[Vyon]

I think they look fantastic. Didn't Ramoth trip and bury her nose in the sand? She looks about to topple over anyway.

I always liked Jaxom, so no problems there. It's the Whelan dinosaurs that get me. They always look as if they couldn't move their heads.

Besides, isn't a "concept" an idea that could still be worked on? As in working drawings for a possible film.

[mawofone]

I like Jaxom's pic much better here than in DLGP. I did not like his pic in that book at all.
I loved all the pics.

[Cavatica]

I think they look fantastic. Didn't Ramoth trip and bury her nose in the sand? She looks about to topple over anyway.

I always liked Jaxom, so no problems there. It's the Whelan dinosaurs that get me. They always look as if they couldn't move their heads.

Besides, isn't a "concept" an idea that could still be worked on? As in working drawings for a possible film.
...the Whelan dinosaurs? What?

[Brenda]

I'm guessing that's aimed at the Whelan covers?