Monday, April 8, 2024

Curse the Baggins!

I've long been a defender of amateurish old school art, but even I have limits. 

While re-reading some old Dragon magazine issues from the mid-1980s, I came across an advertisement Riddle of the Ring, a Middle-earth boardgame originally released in 1977. The ad mentions that a new edition of the game, from Iron Crown Enterprises, which, at the time, held the Middle-earth license, was in the works. However, a limited number of the original edition was still available from its original publisher, Fellowship Games of Columbia, South Carolina.

The only reason I even paid any attention to this full-page advertisement is that it included examples of the artwork found in the original edition, like this:

Or this:
To paraphrase the great philosopher David St. Hubbins, there's a fine line between charming and just bad and I find it difficult to judge either of the examples of Riddle of the Ring's artwork above as anything but the latter. Maybe that's unfair, given the relatively early publication date of this game and the likely limited resources of the publisher. I understand that they're not going to look as awesome as the Brothers Hildebrandt Tolkien calendars of the same era, but, surely, they should be better than this.

Am I wrong?

14 comments:

  1. They are better than I could draw them... but that is saying very little indeed!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am deeply envious of those who can draw – or indeed have any other skills besides writing.

      Delete
    2. I am the badly drawn stick figure level! My brother can turn out near professional looking characters and it drives me bonkers that I am so bad at anything past basic geometrical shapes.

      Delete
  2. I quite like Gollum; it has some charm, reminiscent of Tove Jansson (who did illustrate a version of The Hobbit), but the Frodo card has much less going for it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Just no. Even back in the 1970s there were professional or semi-pro artists who could have been engaged to do better than this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The first one is cute in a caveman drawing sort of way. Not so the second one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I love them. They look so happy! I'd agree with you though.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I prefer it to modern D&D art and I am being completely sincere.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "There's a fine line between clever and stupid."

    ReplyDelete
  8. The artwork is crude, but it does have some charm insofar as it does not reflect the typical "fantasy aesthetic" one sees in the work of the Hildebrandt Brothers (for example) or, for that matter, what one sees in the Rankin-Bass and Bakshi productions. It's a bit like seeing pre-Frazetta portrayals of REH's Conan. I agree that the Gollum picture in particular is reminiscent of the Jansson illustrations.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The first card has a certain "Amanda Seyfried in Ted 2" vibe going for it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Still the funnest LotR board game I've ever played though.

    ReplyDelete