Anyone know why WotC decided Easley was the right artist to draw a promotional mini-poster for the Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves movie to give out as a promotion, but his name was removed from the art? I mean they know Easley puts out high quality art for D&D so they called him to do the painting, but then they removed his signature. Anyone able to steel man Wotc for removing an artists name from his work?
Given, Easley has decades of doing the covers for a number of D&D books and modules and his signature was kept. Giving Easley credit, he did find the removal of his signature "more amusing than anything else".
Given had I known that was an option, I'd have bought a ticket for an early screening, get the poster, just go get something done by Easley, even cheap mass produced, it would be worth the ticket cost to me. Just saying, starting handing out that poster, and I'd pay $15 for a ticket today, not for the movie but for the poster. If they want to make their money back, get that printer going gents.
Whether it was Paramount or Hasbro, you KNOW it was fueled by the same animus toward Mr. Easley's demographic attributes that's all the rage these days.
The industry norm for decades has been that artist signatures do not appear on movie posters. With a few notable exceptions (such as the Indiana Jones movies), most artistic movie posters are unsigned. I expect Paramount removed the signature keeping in-line with company policy. To an extent, that makes sense - the poster exists to promote the movie, not the artist, and you want the focus to be on the names of the folks making the film not making the advertisement. After all, that’s what a movie poster is - an advertisement - and you don’t really expect to see an artist credit in your advertisements.
Granted, in this case, that seems rather silly. It isn’t really an advertisement - it is a collectable where the artist is the specific draw. I expect some mid-level manager applied a blanket policy without stopping to ask themselves if the corporate rule actually applied to this specific situation.
Promotional stuff made, wether artwork, photo or video rarely display the creator's logo or signature epecially when its commissionned for advertisement purposes. Like Jeff Easley said, none of the other promo art was signed so i assume it was the client's directives. I assume most client will specify it in the contract though but in this particular case we don't know if it was originally asked or not but it's within their right to do so i assume.
Anyone know why WotC decided Easley was the right artist to draw a promotional mini-poster for the Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves movie to give out as a promotion, but his name was removed from the art? I mean they know Easley puts out high quality art for D&D so they called him to do the painting, but then they removed his signature. Anyone able to steel man Wotc for removing an artists name from his work?
Given, Easley has decades of doing the covers for a number of D&D books and modules and his signature was kept. Giving Easley credit, he did find the removal of his signature "more amusing than anything else".
Given had I known that was an option, I'd have bought a ticket for an early screening, get the poster, just go get something done by Easley, even cheap mass produced, it would be worth the ticket cost to me. Just saying, starting handing out that poster, and I'd pay $15 for a ticket today, not for the movie but for the poster. If they want to make their money back, get that printer going gents.
https://www.geeknative.com/157539/hasbro-removes-artists-signature-from-dd-movie-poster/
From the article you linked to, it was actually Paramount, not WotC/Hasbro, that was responsible for removing the signature.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That update was just after I posted.
I believe the plan was to have a signed version available for a "micro-transaction".
https://wulfgold.substack.com
Blog - nerd stuff
https://deepdreamgenerator.com/u/wulfgold
A.I. art - also nerd stuff - a gallery of NPC portraits - help yourself.
That is absolute nonsense.
The industry norm for decades has been that artist signatures do not appear on movie posters. With a few notable exceptions (such as the Indiana Jones movies), most artistic movie posters are unsigned. I expect Paramount removed the signature keeping in-line with company policy. To an extent, that makes sense - the poster exists to promote the movie, not the artist, and you want the focus to be on the names of the folks making the film not making the advertisement. After all, that’s what a movie poster is - an advertisement - and you don’t really expect to see an artist credit in your advertisements.
Granted, in this case, that seems rather silly. It isn’t really an advertisement - it is a collectable where the artist is the specific draw. I expect some mid-level manager applied a blanket policy without stopping to ask themselves if the corporate rule actually applied to this specific situation.
Promotional stuff made, wether artwork, photo or video rarely display the creator's logo or signature epecially when its commissionned for advertisement purposes. Like Jeff Easley said, none of the other promo art was signed so i assume it was the client's directives. I assume most client will specify it in the contract though but in this particular case we don't know if it was originally asked or not but it's within their right to do so i assume.
Going to rename the thread then? It should say "Paramount movie poster."