I voted Nasmith for his landscapes and architecture.
[In reply to]
Can't Post
HIs characters are hit or miss, some of their poses look unnatural. I'm willing to overlook that because of his sublime landscapes and glorious architecture.
Had to be Alan Lee in the end, because I've loved his illustrations for so long and was thrilled to bits when I saw the centenary Tolkien - an Alan Lee Tolkien was something I'd dreamed of. I din't know John Howe's work then: now I do, I love it pretty much the same. I'd love to see a Silmarillion illustrated by them both.
Ted Nasmith is good and I do love some of his landcapes. But I'm not keen on a lot of his figure drawing and I think sometimes he's too precise - Alan Lee knows when to leave things misty and mysterious - at leat, that's just my take on it!
You deserve five lashes with a wet....whatever those ropy things are; Doberman tails, elf hair, random water snakes.....for posting that.
Ezpeleta's main crime in my book is begging too many questions beginning with the phrase "What is that...." that I really don't want to know the answer to.
because she draws the characters close to how I would draw them, if only I could, and she imagines their stories beyond what Tolkien wrote about (the Boromir-Faramir childhood drawings are wonderful).
Lee is too colorless for me and the Hildebrants are too twee. Of the choices you gave, I'd go with Nasmith - his scenes are so gorgeous. But if another animated movie happened, I'd want him to do the matte backgrounds and Chmiel the characters.
(This post was edited by Annael on Nov 2 2016, 2:51pm)
I've been a Hildebrandts fan since 1976
[In reply to]
Can't Post
despite their obvious faults.
A local restaurant here named Avogadro's Number had copies of their paintings on their walls (now mostly painted over with other scenes). There used to be a life-sized Goldberry, alas gone now, but there are still a few images on the outside of the building:
4 /
15%
