Castlevania Dungeon Forums
The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Abnormal Freak on July 31, 2016, 04:57:36 PM
-
http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/07/tom_dubois_talks_about_creating_some_of_the_most_iconic_boxart_of_the_nes_and_snes_eras (http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/07/tom_dubois_talks_about_creating_some_of_the_most_iconic_boxart_of_the_nes_and_snes_eras)
http://boxequalsart.com/tom-dubois-interview-page.html (http://boxequalsart.com/tom-dubois-interview-page.html) - direct interview
Finally! a name!
(A sequel to this ancient thread (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,3085.0.html).)
-
NOICE!
I always suspected Sunset Riders, TMNT (I think it was Turtles in Time) and Super CV4 had the same artist or team of artists. Good to know my suspicion was correct.
-
I still don't get why his name had to be kept obfuscaded and behind 7 proxies like that. It pisses me off slightly, actually.
What I did retrieve I sent to a collector from Canada who tracked me down. In return he sent me a new computer!
Hmm, so I'm connecting the dots now.
-
Pretty sure that collector is bronty, who came here posting the same shit he did at the TMNT Technodrome board. Clearly he didn't want to give anyone the name because he wanted to snatch up every bit of remaining original art the artist had—in this case it was a trade for a f***ing new computer, clearly withholding from Dubois what his art could potentially be worth.
-
Pretty sure that collector is bronty, who came here posting the same shit he did at the TMNT Technodrome board. Clearly he didn't want to give anyone the name because he wanted to snatch up every bit of remaining original art the artist had—in this case it was a trade for a f***ing new computer, clearly withholding from Dubois what his art could potentially be worth.
Exactly what I thought too after reading the mystery collector part. Which makes me slightly-er more pissed, as an artist myself.
Dude comes to the forum, sets up a reveal that never comes, withholds information that is quite valuable to the fanbase, while the artist, who should be receiving credit, is none the wiser. All the while he cries "MUH PRIVACY" as if the artist had agreed with this. Pretty shit move. And as you said, he's been doing this kinda shit for a while. (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=30035&page=93) I hope that, at least, the computer was a good deal.
I have read that Bronty is doing/is part of some "documentary" stuff, and I don't give a shit. He's been taunting people for years now, withholding collectors from obtaining their art or the artists from possibly getting a job related to this, or selling their works at a good value. I hate this kinda people. For someone saying he admires and respects the artist so much, he sure as fuck doesn't show it.
I'll make sure to get this info to the Castlevania Wiki and everywhere else I can. Fuck Bronty and his documentary.
-
Not a documentary but a video game artbook is what he told me; probably high- or decent-quality scans with artist credits and possibly profile information.
-
I wonder if anyone's gonna go track down bronty's old threads and finally reveal Dubois and upstage bronty's bullshit.
It'd be a bit petty, but not at all unwarranted.
-
Sadly, the guy won. I know dudes who would've paid good money for Dubois' original art; now it sounds like they won't have the chance, and we always knew this was the reason for bronty not mentioning the artist's name, because he'd already amassed quite the collection of original game art.
I'm not a person who would buy original art for hundreds of dollars, I'm just happy to finally know who the artist is.
-
Sadly, the guy won. I know dudes who would've paid good money for Dubois' original art; now it sounds like they won't have the chance, and we always knew this was the reason for bronty not mentioning the artist's name, because he'd already amassed quite the collection of original game art.
I'm not a person who would buy original art for hundreds of dollars, I'm just happy to finally know who the artist is.
In fact I'm also very happy you posted this here, dude. I was itching to know who did this artwork for a long time now.
My peeve with bronty isn't even his business practices. He wasn't satisfied with getting the deal, nooo. He had to flaunt the deal he got WHILE keeping the artist away from everyone. "Look at how exclusive I am!" This is just underhanded and unprofessional in more levels than Dante could imagine for his Inferno. You can't simply uncredit the artist you obtained the work from while crying "privacy" if you weren't the one to comission the work in the first place.
This guy is a joke. He obviously did this out of wanting to get a piss cheap deal and lock out any other potential buyer who would certainly have paid for this art very well. Here's the documentary thing I said (http://forums.thetechnodrome.com/showthread.php?t=53935).
But again, I'm happy you posted this here and for finally knowing who the artist is. This man is part of my childhood. The wiki has been updated accordingly :D
-
Holy shit, ha ha! I thought the guy disappeared a couple years ago but there he is, teasing the artist reveal even further and talking about a doc. Sheesh.
-
I wonder if anyone's gonna go track down bronty's old threads and finally reveal Dubois and upstage bronty's bullshit.
It'd be a bit petty, but not at all unwarranted.
Seriously. I would just out of principle, if I could be assed to sign up for a forum I'd probably never post on otherwise. But it sounds like it's a moot point now, anyway.
-
Thank you for posting this article.
I'm glad we finally got the name of the guy who contributed so much to the series' look, although I'm a bit annoyed with what bronty did also. I'm one of those collectors who would have paid nicely for some of the original art. I somehow doubt this computer that was exchanged for the art could even come close to the actual worth of those pieces. And what's even more unfortunate is that if bronty does make a "documentary", he will probably claim the cost of the computer as a business expense.
A true shame.
-
Wow, that's insane that it took this long to find out.
bronty can eat a bag of dicks, also.
-
Glad to know his name! I always loved that cover. I noticed the style similiarities in the TMNT in time cover too! This is awesome to know.
What's this Bronty drama about?
-
What's this Bronty drama about?
To give you a quick summary without derailing the thread too much more (thanks in no small part to my ramblings):
Bronty came to the Dungeon a few years back with awesome scans of early, never-before-seen sketches and versions of Castlevania box art. When asked about who was the artist (because of course, since he gave no names), bronty put up the class act of not telling who they were for unexplained reasons. Then he said that "next year" the artist's identity would be revealed along with a lot of surprises. Guess what? Those never came. And I assure you bronty doesn't have the slightest intention of ever unveiling this here.
Then, looking up bronty, you'll discover that he's been pulling the same stunt on another forum for even longer. He's been called out multiple times on his bullshit, and had the audacity of "feeling offended" over the simple "who's the artist?" question.
Now, with the interview, we have connected the dots: bronty is a collector, and withheld the artist's name so he could get the artworks for dirty cheap money. Why, had he told us who Tom Dubois was, I'm 100% certain someone would pay much better than what the artist received for those artworks (a computer, really). I'm sure he also kept the artist ignorant of how much those artworks were worth, because I bet my ass he'd not give them up for a computer when they are worth much more.
-
I understand why he acted like this, in fact most us *collectors* would have done the same (i.e. try to pay less... wait, try to pay as little as possible... wait, try to trade it for something he probably got for cheap/free or whatever).
What is regrettable is the teasing/butthole part, where he came around here and that other forum (maybe others too) to show the artwork in our faces like "Nah nah nah I have this and you don't, and don't try to ask me who the artist is, 'cause I ain't telling you".
He obviously hid the lower part of the artwork because it had either the artist name or some kind of information which other collectors could use to find him, or at least find more information about him. See for yourself.
Artwork pic 1 (https://postimg.org/image/w3ndzkjuv/) --- Artwork Pic 2 (https://postimg.org/image/i91wvwtgn/)
Next time he can brag about his amazing finds AFTER he's done with his docu-whatever-mentary and AFTER he's done buying out all the artworks he can find. Just so he doesn't look like a total greedy idiot showing us something (for which we thank him, at least I do), but in a way that is very telling about what kind of person he is.
He wants to have exclusive items, avoid the competition, and then he wants people to admire his historical/preservation work or whatever he's doing with the artworks (I suppose it's scanning and providing back info about the author and how the arts came about).
Oh, and I do believe if he sees this thread he'll be thinking "What a bunch of jealous collectors/fanboys". :)
-
This is awesome! I've been trying to find out who this artist was. I was actually just talking to my wife about this last week, showing her all the different art he did.
Thanks a ton for posting this, Freak!
-
Oh, and I do believe if he sees this thread he'll be thinking "What a bunch of jealous collectors/fanboys". :)
If he's thinking that then he's drawn the wrong conclusion based on his arrogance and hubris. Sure he wants to get his hands on some good shit first. So what, everybody does. But he went to extremes to do it as well as rubbing that shit in everyones' faces--Even before getting the stuff. That's a childish attitude on his part. Something you'd see in 6-year-olds. Some people just never leave preschool.
-
Lotsa unwarranted personal attacks amidst errors in fact here guys. I'll take the high road and avoid returning fire.
Since the biggest beef seems to be that I didn't let the name be public, let me ask you something? Where do you think Adam Gibney (the owner of that website) got the name? From information I allowed to be publicized (specifically with respect to the kickstarter). The reason you're reading that article is because I released the name for purposes of funding the documentary about Tom and some of the other fabulous artists that worked in this area... so that more can be known about these wonderful creators we all admire.
As for people suggesting I held back the name until I could buy the art, not at all true. The simple fact is the art had already been purchased long before. I've owned SOME (it was purchased with a friend/partner) of the art for many years now. I had simply held Tom's name back, as previously stated, so that we could use his name and others in the documentary (and/or book - hitting a snag there with the publisher currently). In addition, not that its anyone's business, but there have been other times I have sent Tom money.
Frankly, I was naive to the fact that we'd have to release some names to enable funding of the documentary, and that's what's led to the current situation of Adam Gibney taking my information and scooping me with it. Doesn't matter. It was public info at that point, and at the end of the day its all helping more people appreciate Tom's art, and publicizing the name on my terms and timing did lead to excitement and successful funding for the documentary, which I'm very excited about.
With respect to Technodrome. I'm not super proud of how I handled myself on the first go around there. I do feel there was a moderator there who was antagonizing and needling me without really having a clue what he was talking about, but I took the bait when I could and should have handled it better, so that's on me.
Regardless. I'd appreciate it if we could channel this energy into something positive like the appreciation of Tom's art.
-
NOICE!
I always suspected Sunset Riders, TMNT (I think it was Turtles in Time) and Super CV4 had the same artist or team of artists. Good to know my suspicion was correct.
Tom did about many, many boxes.
at some point I'll post a list, whether that's here or elsewhere, but the long and the short of it is basically everything konami/ultra from blades of steel through about 1994.
Sure, the style is hard to miss.
Just on the boxes you named -
Look at sunset riders. Look at the horses - they are done the same as on defender of the crown and on lone ranger. Now look at the train. Its the same model train as is on TMNT in time and lone ranger.
TMNT in time. Look at the pirate ship. Same as on Pirates. Now look at the elongated snarling dino face. Any time Tom did a snake (or in this case, dino looks similar) face it was elongated with teeth. Yeah you can see that on CV4 but also on Bad n Rad and Mystical Ninja.
Lots of clues if one looks with a critical eye. Hopefully some of you will enjoy hunting for them.
-
But again, I'm happy you posted this here and for finally knowing who the artist is. This man is part of my childhood. The wiki has been updated accordingly :D
Not super familiar with how wiki works but saw you updated it for cv2 gb.
In the interests of keeping information accurate, the CV pieces he did were
Cv3 NES
cv4 SNES
cv2 gb
cv bloodlines genesis.
No others.
Legends was someone else, Cv 1 & 2 nes were someone else, Cv SOTN was someone else, Cv drac x was someone else, cv1 gb was someone else, etc. etc. Most if not all of the others came from Japan which I have no knowledge about.
-
Now, with the interview, we have connected the dots: bronty is a collector, and withheld the artist's name so he could get the artworks for dirty cheap money. Why, had he told us who Tom Dubois was, I'm 100% certain someone would pay much better than what the artist received for those artworks (a computer, really). I'm sure he also kept the artist ignorant of how much those artworks were worth, because I bet my ass he'd not give them up for a computer when they are worth much more.
I'll skip being offended, but I'll just point out the gaps in your reasoning:
a) you don't know which pieces I purchased let alone what they are worth
b) you don't know what I paid Tom (the computer was a specific model at his request in lieu of an equivalent amount of cash)
c) you don't know when I purchased them
d) you don't know what the art was worth when I purchased it.
Long story short when I started buying this art from Tom and others nearly ten years ago, no one was interested in it, except myself and one other person. Almost none of this stuff ever makes its way onto ebay, but on the rare occasions when a piece did, it sat with zero bids except our own. There was no market at that time. In recent years, people have started to be interested and paid at times very good money. That not much different than the history with the games themselves, yes? Back when I started collecting the games themselves, gamees that are now $1000 and fought over you could buy for $100 or less with very little competition.
Would I have paid Tom more? In honesty, yes. I would have paid him anything I could afford. I offered him a price I thought was reasonable and almost double what those ebay auctions were getting because frankly I found that in general, I had to pay more privately than at ebay to make people want to bother selling. He accepted and I'm proud to have known him a little and to have the opportunity to look at some of his artwork from time to time, in the flesh.
Would anyone else have paid Tom more at the time? Not to my knowledge or belief, no. Would anyone else pay more now, years later? Sure.
-
His name should never of been withheld from the fans for any reason.
It's morally wrong to do that to an artist
You owe the man an apology.
-
His name should never of been withheld from the fans for any reason.
It's morally wrong to do that to an artist
You owe the man an apology.
I don't agree. I love Tom and I'd apologize if it were necessary, but promoting his art through the documentary and other channels is kind of the opposite of withholding his name, don't you think?
Yes, it happened on my timetable not yours. So what?
-
I already gave you too much spotlight, bronty. I was writting a long ass text explaining exactly what and where are your new bullshit attempts on this response to me, but I'm certain the other members here are not dumb and don't need this explained to them, so there is no need to post it at all. You believe yourself to be absolutely correct in all accounts, so at least own it and stop spinning increasingly convoluted plots to justify your bullshit.
Consider this, however: You don't know WHAT I know or not to be telling me that I don't know something. You're bluffing. But I assure you I know quite a lot as of the present moment and I've verified that you're indeed a grade-A douchenozzle. You may skip being offended here too in yet another attempt at buying middle ground, I don't give a flying shit.
Have fun staring at your collection.
but promoting his art through the documentary and other channels is kind of the opposite of withholding his name, don't you think?
Now that it has escaped your control, you can claim whatever you want. Makes no difference to Belmontoya's point: You simply don't post an artist's art somewhere without crediting the artist. SPECIALLY when there obviously are a bunch of people trying to contact this artist. The artist is not your property and you have ZERO right to keep his name away from people. This is "Posting Art That Doesn't Belong To You 101."
-
I already gave you too much spotlight, bronty. I was writting a long ass text explaining exactly what and where are your new bullshit attempts on this response to me, but I'm certain the other members here are not dumb and don't need this explained to them, so there is no need to post it at all. You believe yourself to be absolutely correct in all accounts, so at least own it and stop spinning increasingly convoluted plots to justify your bullshit.
Consider this, however: You don't know WHAT I know or not to be telling me that I don't know something. You're bluffing. But I assure you I know quite a lot as of the present moment and I've verified that you're indeed a grade-A douchenozzle. You may skip being offended here too in yet another attempt at buying middle ground, I don't give a flying shit.
Have fun staring at your collection.
Nothing I've said wasn't true. Sorry if that's not good enough for you.
-
Yes, it happened on my timetable not yours. So what?
So what?
It wasn't your creation. You had no right to withhold that from the fans all this time.
You manipulated him and now you're pretending that you did the man a service.
This is a forum made up largely of artists. Not sleeze bags who try to make a buck off of them. What type of response are you expecting here? A thank you?
I've spent many nights trying to figure out who the artist for CV4 was. It's my favorite game of all time. To think the info was sitting in your back pocket the whole time just because you felt like it sickens me.
I can think of a much more fitting response.
-
So what?
It wasn't your creation. You had no right to withhold that from the fans all this time.
You manipulated him and now you're pretending that you did the man a service.
This is a forum made up largely of artists. Not sleeve bags who try to make a buck off of them. What type of response are you expecting here? A thank you?
I've spent many nights trying to figure out who the artist for CV4 was. It's my favorite game of all time. To think the info was sitting in your back pocket the whole time just because you felt like it sickens me.
I can think of a much more fitting response.
Yes a thank you would be great. I spent an hour or two a day for two years figuring out who he was.
-
Yes a thank you would be great. I spent an hour or two a day for two years figuring out who he was.
You left out selfishly in that sentence.
-
You left out selfishly in that sentence.
If you say so.
Well, I don't feel like this discussion is super productive. Instead of focussing on the new information I shared with you such as the stylistic similarities in the way Tom rendered certain objects (you say you are artists?) you harp on at me about matters you weren't present for or involved in.
You seem to be more interested in attacking me than in any discussion of Tom's art, and that's pretty sad. You guys have literally not said ONE WORD about the art itself.
Bye for now.
-
The biggest problem I have with your approach all this time, bronty, is that you basically rubbed it in everyone's noses that you knew the name of the artist and weren't going to tell until "the time was right"—when you clearly would no longer profit in some way from having exclusive access to this information. Which, you admitted, was revealed earlier than you had intended because the documentary crew required the info be made public for their fundraiser.
When pressed about it at the Technodrome board, I seem to recall you saying something along the lines of, "I'm the one who did all the searching and research to track down this guy. You could have all done the same but you didn't." It's your pride and rubbing it in people's noses that sets people off.
I appreciate your (eventually) putting the spotlight on the artist and drumming up interest, but the way you went about it could have been handled better. What did it benefit you to not reveal the guy's name for so many years?
It's possible, however, that a computer for Dubois' art was a fair trade, especially if he requested one, so I'll take back any criticism of that. The truth in a lot of cases is that these for-hire artists don't put a special monetary value on their work.
-
You guys have literally not said ONE WORD about the art itself.
We have, in fact, discussed Dubois' art in another thread. It hadn't been posted in for a long time, and just to get the name out there right away with no digging for the pertinent info, I made a new thread.
-
The biggest problem I have with your approach all this time, bronty, is that you basically rubbed it in everyone's noses that you knew the name of the artist and weren't going to tell until "the time was right"—when you clearly would no longer profit in some way from having exclusive access to this information. Which, you admitted, was revealed earlier than you had intended because the documentary crew required the info be made public for their fundraiser.
When pressed about it at the Technodrome board, I seem to recall you saying something along the lines of, "I'm the one who did all the searching and research to track down this guy. You could have all done the same but you didn't." It's your pride and rubbing it in people's noses that sets people off.
I appreciate your (eventually) putting the spotlight on the artist and drumming up interest, but the way you went about it could have been handled better. What did it benefit you to not reveal the guy's name for so many years?
It's possible, however, that a computer for Dubois' art was a fair trade, especially if he requested one, so I'll take back any criticism of that. The truth in a lot of cases is that these for-hire artists don't put a special monetary value on their work.
thank you for the more-respectful line of questioning.
Fine, fair points about the technodrome posts, as I've already admitted.
As for why I didn't reveal, as I said, I wanted to be the one to reveal that information. I don't know if you've ever knocked your head against a wall for two years searching for the answer to what should be a simple problem, but when you have that much time invested in finding out the answer, you at least want to be in control of how that answer is shared with people.
Specifically, my vision was always to publish a book on all of these artists, not just Tom. That soemwhere along the way turned into a documentary and whatnot as well, but the information, as you all found out, was terribly difficult to track down. I didn't want to just give away what I'd worked that hard to find out. I wanted to at least do so in the way I felt most appropriate.
-
We have, in fact, discussed Dubois' art in another thread. It hadn't been posted in for a long time, and just to get the name out there right away with no digging for the pertinent info, I made a new thread.
I mean in the context of replying to me.
One of my replies was directly about his art. Zero response, crickets, just attacks. You see my disappointment in that? I would have hoped that the post about the stylistic similarities would be the one that would have ignited the interest, instead, petty bickering.
-
Tom did about many, many boxes.
at some point I'll post a list, whether that's here or elsewhere, but the long and the short of it is basically everything konami/ultra from blades of steel through about 1994.
Sure, the style is hard to miss.
Just on the boxes you named -
Look at sunset riders. Look at the horses - they are done the same as on defender of the crown and on lone ranger. Now look at the train. Its the same model train as is on TMNT in time and lone ranger.
TMNT in time. Look at the pirate ship. Same as on Pirates. Now look at the elongated snarling dino face. Any time Tom did a snake (or in this case, dino looks similar) face it was elongated with teeth. Yeah you can see that on CV4 but also on Bad n Rad and Mystical Ninja.
Lots of clues if one looks with a critical eye. Hopefully some of you will enjoy hunting for them.
This is the one I mean. Not a single response.
-
Instead of focussing on the new information I shared with you such as the stylistic similarities in the way Tom rendered certain objects (you say you are artists?)
1. You shared shit with us. These have been discussed to death before you have even showed your face in this forum, even before we knew who the artist was. You didn't give us any golden info we hadn't spotted before, don't fool yourself.
2. Yes we're artists. Number 1 reason why we think you're a shitlord.
3. Stop trying to escape.
me about matters you weren't present for or involved in.
Were you present or involved when Tom Dubois' mother gave him his name? Because you sure as fuck appeared to be entitled to it when people started asking who he was.
You seem to be more interested in attacking me than in any discussion of Tom's art, and that's pretty sad. You guys have literally not said ONE WORD about the art itself.
This is us:
NOICE!
I always suspected Sunset Riders, TMNT (I think it was Turtles in Time) and Super CV4 had the same artist or team of artists. Good to know my suspicion was correct.
But again, I'm happy you posted this here and for finally knowing who the artist is. This man is part of my childhood. The wiki has been updated accordingly :D
I'm glad we finally got the name of the guy who contributed so much to the series' look
Glad to know his name! I always loved that cover. I noticed the style similiarities in the TMNT in time cover too! This is awesome to know.
This is awesome! I've been trying to find out who this artist was. I was actually just talking to my wife about this last week, showing her all the different art he did.
This is you:
Yes a thank you would be great.
On top of acting like an entitled idiot, you also don't know how to use "literally." I, at least, won't respond to your cute "pointing outs" of the art's curiosities. I don't feel like acting friendly to you at all.
-
I can understand and appreciate that. You did the hard work of tracking the artist down and likely other unnamed artists as well. It's all a bit of a misunderstanding, I think; we got rubbed the wrong way.
Now the artist's name is known, and hey, I'm pleased about that—I've wanted to know who he is for a long time because I've always liked his artwork. That one ad shown in the interview, which has a Turtle, Monty Max, and presumably a guy from Sunset Riders—I copied that drawing on a school folder way back in the day. I was surprised to see that he did that since I'd completely forgotten about the art.
Anyway, I don't think you're a scumbag, so apologies for bringing unwanted negative attention toward you.
-
I can understand and appreciate that. You did the hard work of tracking the artist down and likely other unnamed artists as well. It's all a bit of a misunderstanding, I think; we got rubbed the wrong way.
Now the artist's name is known, and hey, I'm pleased about that—I've wanted to know who he is for a long time because I've always liked his artwork. That one ad shown in the interview, which has a Turtle, Monty Max, and presumably a guy from Sunset Riders—I copied that drawing on a school folder way back in the day. I was surprised to see that he did that since I'd completely forgotten about the art.
Anyway, I don't think you're a scumbag, so apologies for bringing unwanted negative attention toward you.
Thumbs up and I appreciate you as well.
By the way, Tom did lots of non-cover pieces like the one you mention as well. There were various magazine advertisements and so on done in that time frame, all of which had art by his hand. Back in the day they paid him $5000 for a cover and $3000 for magazine ads and such. He was making good money in those days.
-
1. You shared shit with us. These have been discussed to death before you have even showed your face in this forum, even before we knew who the artist was. You didn't give us any golden info we hadn't spotted before, don't fool yourself.
2. Yes we're artists. Number 1 reason why we think you're a shitlord.
3. Stop trying to escape.
Were you present or involved when Tom Dubois' mother gave him his name? Because you sure as fuck appeared to be entitled to it when people started asking who he was.
This is us:
This is you:
On top of acting like an entitled idiot, you also don't know how to use "literally." I, at least, won't respond to your cute "pointing outs" of the art's curiosities. I don't feel like acting friendly to you at all.
Kisses.
-
Had you released the information when you came here to discuss it (telling people you had it), you'd be widely met with thanks and not contempt.
But...I'm not out to make an enemy of you.
Thanks for doing the work of discovering him. I DO appreciate that.
I suggest now that you do on work dealing with the public because you're terrible at it.
-
Had you released the information when you came here to discuss it (telling people you had it), you'd be widely met with thanks and not contempt.
But...I'm not out to make an enemy of you.
Thanks for doing the work of discovering him. I DO appreciate that.
I suggest now that you do on work dealing with the public because you're terrible at it.
I should have just not said anything til I was ready to come forward completely. As I saw happen once with a friend who made a similar mistake, the one thing people can't deal with is being told they can't know something. For whatever reason it just drives people mental, and I made that mistake for sure. I guess I was proud of the art and wanted to share that, but should have waited til I was ready to share everything.
Sharing some but not all of what you know people like less than just sharing nothing.
-
A couple points, guys:
1. Ultimately, we may have not ever known Tom Dubois' name had it not been for bronty's research. There was kind of a carrot-dangling thing going on there but we know his name now due to this documentary bronty is in some way contributing to. I doubt the doc filmmakers would have been able to shed light on Dubois independent of bronty.
2. I'm not a moderator and it's a no-no for non-mods to moderate, but I think it'd be good to cool down a bit for the sake of this thread remaining open. The cool thing is that we have a name for the artist, something I've wanted to know for a few years now because other artists' names had been becoming public geek knowledge but this particular Konami artist wasn't common knowledge on the Internet. Now, hopefully, his name and art will be more well-known.
-
A couple points, guys:
1. Ultimately, we may have not ever known Tom Dubois' name had it not been for bronty's research. There was kind of a carrot-dangling thing going on there but we know his name now due to this documentary bronty is in some way contributing to. I doubt the do.lc filmmakers would have been able to shed light on Dubois' independent of bronty.
2. I'm not a moderator and it's a no-no for non-mods to moderate, but I think it'd be good to cool down a bit for the sake of this thread remaining open. The cool thing is that we have a name for the artist, something I've wanted to know for a few years now because other artists' names had been becoming public geek knowledge but this particular Konami artist wasn't common knowledge on the Internet. Now, hopefully, his name and art will be more well-known.
Well said
-
hopefully my last post ont his for a while.
WHen Tom mentioned doing a cover for another publisher - that was Jaleco. Metal Mech.
You can compare/contrast with cybernator, I guess. The mech itself doesn't scream his work to me, but the figure alongside the mech is a little more telling.
-
IMPORTANT NOTE: I understand that quite a few replies have cropped up in the time it's taken me to type this out, and I can say that I've had a slight change of views in reading through those (as my last few sentences will hopefully convey)--however, I still have some bearing in retaining the thoughts contained herein despite moving to a less angry frame of mind, and frankly don't feel like self-censorship due to a couple of new developments. I'm not necessarily intending to reignite shit with this post so much as provide a very straightforward conveyance of how I feel on certain aspects of the matter. If it does happen to start things up again and/or becomes too problematic, I'll gladly make necessary edits to remove or alter the tone of any troublesome sections. But basically, a lot of this is slightly outdated (but not necessarily gone from my mind and feelings) due to new thread developments--please bear that in mind going forward.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For someone claiming to be going the high road, you're doing an awful lot of work trying to "so what" people who've had something to say on the matter. You could be doing worse, but that doesn't mean what you're doing now is good.
What you have done with Tom is the approximate equivalent of the tired old "I can't pay you in money, but it'll be GREAT for getting you exposure" routine artists have had to put up with basically forever. Artists can't live off of exposure, and unless you're willing to put forth the effort to verify that you've indeed sent him additional money as you claim, I have no reason to believe the statement beyond the purchase price of the works you own--it feels way too much like a "yeah but you don't know THIS, so haha" turnaround.
You say you were withholding his name in order to have some big grand reveal of everything in some spiffy documentary (which would conveniently have your name all over it), but allow me to ask you something, if you'll even answer and not just deflect it as we've seen you do in the past.
Has Tom been okay with this? Is he aware that this is your plan? Have you discussed the matter with him and informed him that you're totally not hanging him out to dry because you wanna have a big reveal later that you can also put your own name out there on? Has he agreed to this if you have?
Basically, unless there's a confirmable case of evidence that Tom is not only aware of your methods, but also in agreement with them, there is no real way for those of us who've seen your past behaviors to take anything you say herein seriously or as something to be considered truthful. What you've done in here went from a seemingly good levelling and implied regret as to past actions to what more or less amounts of "yeah, I did it my way, big whoop wanna fight about it?"
In my case at least, until I see irrefutable evidence that dictates that Tom is not only aware of your supposed plans, but is also in on them and in full agreement with how they're operating, I will not view what you have done as anything but a monumental disrespect and show of ignorance to an artist who's spent a very long time unknown for his increasingly-popular work. As an artist myself, I can speak for myself when I say that I would never willingly agree to a situation like what you're doing to Tom unless I had an absolute guaranteed boom of popularity and recognition upon its completion (and even then probably not).
It's not about the amount of popularity he may get if/when this documentary ever gets made. It's not about what you think is more of a priority. In a lot of ways, it's not really even about money.
Tom is an artist, with work he's gone unknown for for quite a while; you have known this correlation for some time, and have even been in contact with him; you have continually withheld his identity with nothing but cheap runarounds and suspiciously red-flag reasons as to why you've done so; and finally, you claim that you wanted to wait until your documentary to reveal his name to the public en masse, when you could have just as easily made the reveal on a smaller scale earlier and also made the film.
Hell, assuming you're even genuine in your reasons for making said film, from an advertising standpoint what's gonna garner more attention? Something interesting just dropped out of the blue, or something interesting being slightly revealed at one point with the rest being divulged at greater detail in a later documentary? You could have just as easily revealed Tom as the artist and gotten people talking and interested and gathered in the subject again, and THEN made the announcement for your planned film--you'd have already had an audience built up at that point and you wouldn't have had to do something shameful like purposefully withhold an artist's name and credit for the sake of your own project.
You claim to want to promote Tom's art, but so far all I've seen you do is take steps to do the opposite--tell me, for all your claims about how you love the man, or how much you want to do this or that to promote him, or how much you value his art, or how you handled the situation--how much longer are you going to prattle on about yourself and what you think about all this before you actually fill people in on what Tom's thoughts on it all really are? Are you honestly so conceited that you believe your own thoughts and considerations to be above those of the artist you're claiming to want to support?
At any rate, until I see provable material of Tom's thoughts on what you've done and plan to do (and I keep saying things like "provable" because I fully intend to fact-check anything you might post to ensure it's genuinely from his own mouth and mind), all I've seen here and elsewhere is you seeming to care less about Tom and his work and more about keeping his side of things hidden in your own corner until you deem the time right to let other people know just what the hell his story and art is about.
So until I see information beyond reasonable doubt that Tom's both aware of and on board with what you've been doing all this time, what you've done to the man in withholding his name and credit is an insult to his artistic merit and shameful display of your own conceit, just as it would be to any artist in the same unfortunate circumstances.
You continue to say things like "people aren't discussing the art, sad," when that should be a bell going off in your head.
People here know his art, and many people like his art. Many of us don't need to discuss it right now to enjoy it.
That people are going after you for your treatment of Tom and your overall handling and intent behind the scenes should be telling of what people are more concerned about here--sure it's great to finally know the guy's name, but that's small potatoes compared to the way you've kept him in the dark all this time purely on the basis of your own point of view.
You don't sound like you "love" Tom at all, or even really care about him, since all you've been doing is defending yourself and your side of things rather than doing and saying anything that might actually benefit him. If you had so much trouble tracking him down, and "knocked your head against a wall for two years" trying to do so, then why the seven hells would you actively withhold that information from other fans in the same boat?
You had a situation where you could've said "you know, this really sucked for me to go to all the effort to figure out, and there are other people who are also trying the same thing--I could share my findings with them and help them not to have to deal with all the headaches and hair-pulling I had to go through" and instead you decided on "you know, this really sucked for me to go to all the effort to figure out, and there are other people who are also trying the same thing--eh, fuck 'em, let 'em figure it out on their own, if they're not ready for the crazy amount of digging it took me then they don't deserve to know and I don't really want to let slip this information they clearly want because that somehow magically degrades the work I put into figuring it out."
Sure, I'm hyperbolizing for effect, but you get the point.
I haven't seen a single thing from you that conveys that you actually give a shit about Tom as anything beyond a carrot you can dangle over people for your own selfish amusement. For all of what we've seen you post both here and elsewhere, you strongly appear to have taken deliberate and active measures against the very goal (spreading word of his work and supporting him as an artist to that end) you claim to be working towards.
Surely you can see how this contradictory set of circumstances might look from the outside, no? If this kind of situation and feedback is something you didn't want, then perhaps you should've revealed things sooner so that people would know all the facts and details from the start, rather than try and fill in the blanks based on guesses and inferences and readings into your personality based on your posts of self-defense, or at the very least made a more concise attempt to honestly level the things you didn't want to talk about with everyone.
As it stands, I haven't seen anything yet that gives me any indication that you value Tom as an artist as you claim to, that he supports what you're doing (if he even knows at all), or that you're willing to take more critical feedback without resorting to blanket retorts and over-defensiveness towards your own opinion (i.e. "I did it on my timetable, so what? I've done this, what do you know?", etc.).
If this means that I've now posted things that you are uncomfortable with and it turns out that I've simply made a serious misreading based on a near-total lack of solid information, then I will readily offer my apologies should that prove to be the case.
In any case, I do indeed have some measure of respect for actually tracking him down--but that's about the only thing so far I can give you a solid thumbs-up on, and I'm a bit sorry to say that this is the case.
It's a good step forward that you're acknowledging where you went wrong and why that is so--this is a good development in diffusing this whole thing.
-
Yes, you're right, I do sound defensive. Perhaps not so surprising when one is attacked by several people at once, yes?
As I say, if I had it to do over I would have done differently, but at the end of the day we all appreciate the artwork and are now in a better position to do so, no?
-
That may be so, but if multiple people are going after you for more or less the same thing, that's generally a good reason to take into consideration that what they're going after you for is something worth attacking.
Plus, as has been mentioned, there are a lot of artists on this board, many of whom are said people going after you--I can't speak for them and won't try to, but I at least would take a grievous amount of offense and insult if I were given the same sort of treatment. That can probably explain much of why you're being hounded--other artists having a problem with how you've handled things from the perspective of being artists.
We may be more-equipped as you say, but that doesn't erase what mistakes you've made and certainly doesn't eliminate people's right to express their discontent with those mistakes.
-
That can probably explain much of why you're being hounded--other artists having a problem with how you've handled things from the perspective of being artists.
With all due respect, artists aren't one homogenous pool, so I don't buy that argument. I've dealt with dozens of professional illustrators, and my experience has been that they come in all shapes and sizes and temperaments. They don't agree on everything much the same way 30 bankers or accountants or lawyers wouldn't agree on everything either. They all have different opinions and perspectives and what annoy some artists, others don't worry about at all.
To give a real life illustration to your discussion of wanting credit. Certain artists approached for the documentary have wanted nothing to do with having their name public and have refused. Others, like Tom, have welcomed it.
I think Abnormal Freak said it well when he/she said that it just initially rubbed people the wrong way. Fair enough, I can understand that and was to blame for that.
-
Cherrypicking part of my statement doesn't do your defense any good when I specifically stated just prior to it that "I can't speak for them and won't try to, but I at least would [reaction]," as well as deliberately using the word "can" in that statement rather than something like "does"--I'm speaking for myself and what I've come to know about a lot of folks here, and I made the necessary clauses to clarify as such.
It doesn't matter if you "buy" the argument or not--you cherrypicking it suggests that you're ignoring the parts of it that clearly differentiate it from the argument you're claiming me to have made.
-
D9 is hitting the nail on the head. That was a helluva long read but you have to understand Bronty, that a lot of spent our childhoods playing games with his artwork, gazing at the covers and dreaming.
This is a tender, tender topic for a lot of us. I've spent a lot of time trying to contact him (never knowing if it was a him).
Anyways...
So contra 3... That must be his work too right?
Let's make this about Tom and not about Bronty.
The cv4 art is so surreal. Dracula in the background flowing with the mist always blew me away. He looks so menacing and dark, yet there is a touch of beauty about him too. He really, really nailed Dracula.
-
Cherrypicking part of my statement doesn't do your defense any good when I specifically stated just prior to it that "I can't speak for them and won't try to, but I at least would [reaction]," as well as deliberately using the word "can" in that statement rather than something like "does"--I'm speaking for myself and what I've come to know about a lot of folks here, and I made the necessary clauses to clarify as such.
It doesn't matter if you "buy" the argument or not--you cherrypicking it suggests that you're ignoring the parts of it that clearly differentiate it from the argument you're claiming me to have made.
No cherrypicking.
You made, as I saw it, two points.
1) that I could have handled it better - to which I agreed
2) that "artists" view it a different way - to which I disagreed.
-
D9 is hitting the nail on the head. That was a helluva long read but you have to understand Bronty, that a lot of spent our childhoods playing games with his artwork, gazing at the covers and dreaming.
This is a tender, tender topic for a lot of us. I've spent a lot of time trying to contact him (never knowing if it was a him).
Anyways...
So contra 3... That must be his work too right?
Let's make this about Tom and not about Bronty.
The cv4 art is so surreal. Dracula on the background flowing with the most always blew me away. He looks so menacing and dark, yet there is a touch of beauty about him too. He really, really nailed Dracula.
contra 3 is his and fucking amazing and SC4 is his and also fucking amazing. He nailed a lot of them!
-
Yes, cherrypicking.
With all due respect, artists aren't one homogenous pool, so I don't buy that argument. I've dealt with dozens of professional illustrators, and my experience has been that they come in all shapes and sizes and temperaments. They don't agree on everything much the same way 30 bankers or accountants or lawyers wouldn't agree on everything either. They all have different opinions and perspectives and what annoy some artists, others don't worry about at all.
At no point did I say anything to state that artists are absolutely a homogeneous pool, share perspectives and viewpoints, and feel the same way about everything at all times.
What I did say was that I'm an artist and am speaking from my own experience and perspective, that there are many artists here (several of whom have chimed in on this thread) who I've known and worked and interacted with for a long time and have a reasonable understanding of how they tend to lean on this or that subject, and made a statement illustrating the potential for those artists drawing similar conclusions in this context--hence my very specific word choice.
Your continual usage of quotation marks around the word artist when referring to people on this board is more than a little troubling; are you implying that we're not "true" artists because of some personal reason, or are you outright mocking us?
It may do well for the future of this thread if you don't post things that can very easily be viewed as a deliberate attempt to rile people up more.
As Montoya's said, it's well past time we give Tom his due and stop pandering to you and your arguments, since most of us have said our peace and those still going are more or less just getting a last word in or clarifying a previous statement. I'd like to turn this thread back into being about Tom and his work now that a lot of us have gotten the major points covered, but that will be a bit difficult to manage if you keep trying to squeeze in final-say thoughts on arguments and points that have already covered their bases already simply because you're misreading them.
So with that, I've said my peace and have now clarified a seeming confusion you've had. If you still find yourself confused following this, then I unfortunately don't know what to tell you. It does us and this thread no good to continue humoring you with continued points and arguments, so with this post I'll be finished debating with you barring something completely drastic.
-
D9 is hitting the nail on the head. That was a helluva long read but you have to understand Bronty, that a lot of spent our childhoods playing games with his artwork, gazing at the covers and dreaming.
This is a tender, tender topic for a lot of us. I've spent a lot of time trying to contact him (never knowing if it was a him).
Anyways...
So contra 3... That must be his work too right?
Let's make this about Tom and not about Bronty.
The cv4 art is so surreal. Dracula in the background flowing with the mist always blew me away. He looks so menacing and dark, yet there is a touch of beauty about him too. He really, really nailed Dracula.
I thought you might enjoy seeing what CV4 looked like without all the trade dress.
I apologize for the poor quality. The image is from a transparency which was an in-between step in production, and its very difficult to take a good photo of them since light doesn't bounce back off them.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1325.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu630%2Fsealed99%2FP1000240_zps5b696494.jpg&hash=236bf251449dda2438d53a9009416adfb34bd5b6)
-
Yes, cherrypicking.
At no point did I say anything to state that artists are absolutely a homogeneous pool, share perspectives and viewpoints, and feel the same way about everything at all times.
What I did say was that I'm an artist and am speaking from my own experience and perspective, that there are many artists here (several of whom have chimed in on this thread) who I've known and worked and interacted with for a long time and have a reasonable understanding of how they tend to lean on this or that subject, and made a statement illustrating the potential for those artists drawing similar conclusions in this context--hence my very specific word choice.
Your continual usage of quotation marks around the word artist when referring to people on this board is more than a little troubling; are you implying that we're not "true" artists because of some personal reason, or are you outright mocking us?
It may do well for the future of this thread if you don't post things that can very easily be viewed as a deliberate attempt to rile people up more.
As Montoya's said, it's well past time we give Tom his due and stop pandering to you and your arguments, since most of us have said our peace and those still going are more or less just getting a last word in or clarifying a previous statement. I'd like to turn this thread back into being about Tom and his work now that a lot of us have gotten the major points covered, but that will be a bit difficult to manage if you keep trying to squeeze in final-say thoughts on arguments and points that have already covered their bases already simply because you're misreading them.
So with that, I've said my peace and have now clarified a seeming confusion you've had. If you still find yourself confused following this, then I unfortunately don't know what to tell you. It does us and this thread no good to continue humoring you with continued points and arguments, so with this post I'll be finished debating with you barring something completely drastic.
I'm really not confused at all. Just trying to respond to everyone without telling them to eat a bag of penises as I was offered at the beginning of this discussion, and to shed some light on some of the matters they seem to be taking issue with. Not sure what else to tell you.
For the record, there was no subtext around using quotation marks around artist.
-
That CV4 transparency is awesome. I wasn't aware he also did Cynernator but when you look at the styles, it's all there.
-
Another thing I love in his CV4 art is that everything is to scale. There's no Godzilla sized Dracula in the background.
It may be obviously staged to showcase many characters and features, but it stays so true to the game and the vibe of it. Unlike the Japanese cover.
It's really the perfect cover to the game. And it was another facet of the perfection that is CV4.
-
That CV4 transparency is awesome. I wasn't aware he also did Cynernator but when you look at the styles, it's all there.
cybernator's not the easiest one to pick out, for sure.
I'd say some of the harder one to identify as his are metal mech, cybernator, rocket knight, perhaps mystical ninja. The last two because they are more airbrush than traditional brush.
Tom was one of the few guys who painted most of his work without any use of airbrush. Most other artists used a mix of airbrush and traditional brush.
That lack of airbrush is one of the reasons his stuff is so identifiable though. Well, that and the fact it was pretty much all for one publisher.
-
Another thing I love in his CV4 art is that everything is to scale. There's no Godzilla sized Dracula in the background.
It may be obviously staged to showcase many characters and features, but it stays so true to the game and the vibe of it. Unlike the Japanese cover.
It's really the perfect cover to the game. And it was another facet of the perfection that is CV4.
Amen it just plunks you right into the action in such a perfect way. So much better than the japanese cover.
Here's the contra 3 cover for you, sans trade dress. Again, sorry for the poor image. Contra 3 is probably my single favorite of his works, personally. SC4 is definitely right up there too. Hard to choose between them.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1325.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fu630%2Fsealed99%2FP1000243_zpscaa9482c.jpg&hash=4c83a98a1da3192cb3c60aad40be1eaa14157419)
-
The thing about Dubois' art is he has excellent line of action. You can really feel the movement coming from a still image.
It's funny knowing he did the Legend of the Mystical Ninja art. I never really liked that cover because it was so at odds with the game art, but I can see his super detailed lines all over that thing. Really cool. The guy did do CV3, right? That's very similar to the CV4 art and likewise it's better than the lifeless Japanese art—which, usually with western vs. eastern art back then it was the other way around, so it's cool when there are exceptions.
I think it goes without saying he likely did Castlevania: Bloodlines—again, better art in the US. Looking back at these covers he did, I now know he was responsible for most of the US box art I actually liked back then; Konami really had the best covers over here, whereas Capcom had some of the worst, IMO.
-
Hi yes I mentioned it above but you must have not seen it .
He did cv3 for NES, cv4 snes, cv2 for gb, and bloodlines. All the rest came from Japan from what I can tell. No other cv titles.
-
Capcom had some of the worst, IMO.
When it comes to Capcom I think it depends a ton on what era you are looking at. Pre 1990 or so their stuff is just terrible. 1942 and mega man and Commando and so on. After that time frame, there is a lot of lovely stuff as well, like duck tales 2 and mighty final fight, and that coincides directly with when they took control of their packaging over from Japan.
If you put their covers on a timeline, you will see what I mean. Starts out awful and ends up really nice. Think mega man 7, X, X2 as opposed to mega man 1
-
He did cv3
Hah! I knew it! You can tell of his style by the way he colors his images. They all have that flowing quality to them. A misty, smoky look that seems to envelop everything in a complimentary way, but not to overpower, and/or take away from everything else in the images.
-
Hah! I knew it! You can tell of his style by the way he colors his images. They all have that flowing quality to them. A misty, smoky look that seems to envelop everything in a complimentary way, but not to overpower, and/or take away from everything else in the images.
Yes his palette is very recognizable. When I had the aha moment , I could tell his Christian images were his before confirming just from the colors. You'll see what I mean
-
Yes his palette is very recognizable. When I had the aha moment , I could tell his Christian images were his before confirming just from the colors. You'll see what I mean
Lots of pastel like hues as well
-
Mega Man 7 and Demon's Crest are the two "bad art" games that first came to mind. More respectable than Mega Man 1 but still miserable compared to the Japanese art.
-
Mega Man 7 and Demon's Crest are the two "bad art" games that first came to mind. More respectable than Mega Man 1 but still miserable compared to the Japanese art.
Boy I couldn't disagree more re mega man 7. I much prefer the North American art. A classic IMO and the Japanese I find generic? A matter of taste I guess, but if you haven't seen it google search mega man 7 , there's a lovely high res scan without trade dress on the Internet. It's a lovely image. They cropped it and changed the colours when they printed which IMO did the art a disservice.
Demons crest is... very... early 90s. Its way over the top but I sure wouldn't mind owning the art, demon in a codpiece or no.
-
Boy I couldn't disagree more re mega man 7.
It's such a cheesedick image. Mega Moobs. I never much cared for US box art that at least kind of tried to look like the Japanese art. To that end, the Mega Man 2 art is better from a design standpoint than Mega Man 3 starring Whoopi Goldberg—sure, Mega Man doesn't have a gun and he's not six feet tall, but at least it's a cool image. The alternative usually looks like bad '90s Disney VHS art: an approximation of the movie art but something's off, be it proportions, facial features, whatever.
If you're the type who doesn't care for manga-style illustrations, I can understand not really digging the Japanese Rockman art, but that stuff always looked great—nicely drawn, well designed.
By the way, I've never seen this ad before:
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgamefabrique.com%2Fimages%2Fposters%2Fmedium%2Fcybernator.jpg&hash=6aee74c6b28d0eae00d29a84509138b4d3c93e9d)
Shame it's so badly covered up by game screenshots but that's a pretty darn funny ad. I wonder if anyone's got the original piece?
-
Same piece is on the manual cover if I recall.
-
Ah, right you are. (My brother has a CIB copy; I only have a cart.)
Never realized that was RoboCop and Terminator, lol.
-
Ah, right you are. (My brother has a CIB copy; I only have a cart.)
Never realized that was RoboCop and Terminator, lol.
Omg I still didn't see it until you said it just now
-
Never realized that was RoboCop and Terminator, lol.
LOL! WTF! I see that now too. Wow. I wonder how many people let this slip by them till they actually caught it?..
-
So can we make a list of everything we know he did? So far we have this, and there are likely some errors here:
NES
The Adventures of Bayou Billy
Bill Elliot's Nascar Challenge
Blades of Steel
Castlevania III
Contra Force
Defender of the Crown
Double Dribble
Laser Invasion
The Lone Ranger
Metal Mech
Mission Impossible
Monster in My Pocket
Nightshade
Pirates!
Rollergames
Snake's Revenge
Super C
Top Gun: The Second Mission
SNES
Axelay
Contra III
Cybernator (cover and ad)
Legend of the Mystical Ninja
Sunset Riders
Super Castlevania IV
TMNT IV: Turtles in Time (cover and ad)
GENESIS
Castlevania: Bloodlines
Lethal Enforcers II: Gun Fighters
Rocket Knight Adventures
TMNT: The Hyperstone Heist
GAMEBOY
Castlevania II: Belmont's Revenge
Nemesis
Operation C
Raging Fighter
Skate or Die: Bad n Rad
TMNT: Radical Rescue
Top Gun: Guts & Glory
SegaCD
Lethal Enforcers
PC
TMNT: Manhattan Missions
(List updated 08/06/16)
I believe I've seen an ad for Castlevania III that was by him; it was a picture of Alucard, Sypha, and Grant morphing into each other. But I don't have it handy to verify it. I'm sure there's a ton more, but I can't look into it at the moment. I'll be out of town the next few days, so I won't be able to update this list - feel free to take over for me, anybody. And a lot of these just look like his style to me, but I could be wrong - let's pick the list apart until it's correct.
-
So can we make a list of everything we know he did? So far we have this, and there are likely some errors here:
NES
The Adventures of Bayou Billy
Blades of Steel ? ? ?
Castlevania III
Contra Force
Defender of the Crown
Laser Invasion
The Lone Ranger
Metal Mech
Mission Impossible
Monster in My Pocket
Nightshade
Pirates!
Snake's Revenge
Super C
Top Gun: The Second Mission
SNES
Axelay ? ? ?
Contra III
Cybernator (cover and ad)
Legend of the Mystical Ninja
Sunset Riders
Super Castlevania IV
TMNT IV: Turtles in Time (cover and ad)
GENESIS
Castlevania: Bloodlines
TMNT: The Hyperstone Heist
GAMEBOY
Castlevania II: Belmont's Revenge
Nemesis
Operation C
Raging Fighter
TMNT: Radical Rescue
Top Gun: Guts & Glory ? ? ?
SegaCD
Lethal Enforcers
PC
TMNT: Manhattan Missions
I believe I've seen an ad for Castlevania III that was by him; it was a picture of Alucard, Sypha, and Grant morphing into each other. But I don't have it handy to verify it. I'm sure there's a ton more, but I can't look into it at the moment. I'll be out of town the next few days, so I won't be able to update this list - feel free to take over for me, anybody. And a lot of these just look like his style to me, but I could be wrong - let's pick the list apart until it's correct.
You can find that here. (http://www.boxequalsart.com/tom-dubois-artist-page.html)
-
Wow. I guess I didn't scroll down far enough on that page.
But that list isn't complete. It doesn't show Metal Mech, Monster in My Pocket, Nemesis, or that PC TMNT game, Manhattan Missions. It would be nice to get a complete list. I'd love to see an art book, but it looks like he only sells prints at this time.
-
Castlevania III ad
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv113%2Fpfloydguy2%2FCastlevania%2520III%2520advertisement_zpsiqnhdlwy.jpg&hash=b9085a31fb658ccabd4daa81d54ddd691014e7cb)
Turtles in Time ad #1
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv113%2Fpfloydguy2%2FTMNT%2520IV%2520Turtles%2520in%2520Time%2520ad%25201_zpsa29upc7u.jpg&hash=215b160d7cde9cb346714a92d5f11ac22d2b9c5d)
Turtles in Time ad #2
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv113%2Fpfloydguy2%2FTMNT%2520IV%2520Turtles%2520in%2520Time%2520ad%25202_zpstt8kyevn.jpg&hash=f443d3ea90cde7d232a39e3e3ba9c727a60178f1)
-
All the ones on the list so far are correct (even the ones with question marks) but it's not complete. I'll try dig up the list I had going. Plus other ads not mentioned here. Getting a list of those will be the hard part
-
What would you call his art style?
Is there a style or genre name for it?
-
Alls I know is I've always appreciated how duBois fused great cartoony poses with high levels of detail. It's like a mash of comic book and western fantasy art, not unlike the paintings of Glenn Fabry and Simon Bisley.
Except that duBois has a greater sense of movement/action, more in line with someone like Bruce Timm.
-
Alls I know is I've always appreciated how duBois fused great cartoony poses with high levels of detail. It's like a mash of comic book and western fantasy art, not unlike the paintings of Glenn Fabry and Simon Bisley.
Except that duBois has a greater sense of movement/action, more in line with someone like Bruce Timm.
His style is his own, I think that's what everyone likes about it. Very original work and not trying to copy anybody else. I get why you compare to bisley, and that's a good comparison and one he'd probably like as he thinks well of bisley, but they are as different as they are similar. He's just his own guy, as is bisley.
Anyhoo, I dug up this pic and thought y'all might find it interesting to see his work on different subject matter. If you look closely the 7 dwarves and the old witch are all hidden in the background somewhere.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fart.cafimg.com%2Fimages%2FCategory_25234%2Fsubcat_105789%2FOriginal%2520concept%2520drawing%2520for%2520Disney%2520Discovery%2520Series%2520SNOW%2520WHITE%252018x23%2520%241000.jpg&hash=df20b22da5958aa3b634ccd7ca8a0341ef84cc1a)
-
Interesting. Found all seven dwarfs and the witch ;D not sure if Prince Charming is in there...
-
I don't think so, at least if he is, its news to me
-
I don't think so, at least if he is, its news to me
Here's one more non-game piece and a 180 from snow white. Made for a playboy article on rock groupies that got cancelled last minute. Sorry for the shit quality image.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fart.cafimg.com%2Fimages%2FCategory_25234%2Fsubcat_105789%2Frockin.JPG&hash=d4d0ab987041c46520f6fb3891cd637c1e44b91d)
-
Shit, it's great to have one less life question after all this time. #coolstorybro
-
One thing that really floored me in that interview was the reveal that Tom's only insight into the games he were illustrating for came from VHS tapes that had to be promptly returned to Konami.
Look at a piece like the Contra 3 artwork. This is probably the greatest piece of official American video game artwork to ever be created! It's right up there along with my favourite Japanese ones.
While it's over-the-top cheesy, that's 100% in line with the style and feeling of the game. The image is LOADED with details without feeling crammed or flooded. But there's so much going on there. And EVERYTHING on the image is in the game! And super faithful to boot! From the look of the enemies to multiple actual gameplay elements! (the dual guns, climbing the arms of the flying robot, etc.)
If I didn't know any better, I'd think the image was created by a hardcore fan of the game. If he got it all from a tape recording, it must have been a complete playthrough of the entire game, with the intro sequence included obviously. No doubt, Tom took pride in his work, has an amazing eye for detail, and wanted to deliver the best he could.
I'd really love to see some more of the stuff this guy did. From non-box videogame art, to any commisions or spare time work he's been doing since then.
PFG9000, where did you dig up all these ads?
-
Castlevania III ad
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv113%2Fpfloydguy2%2FCastlevania%2520III%2520advertisement_zpsiqnhdlwy.jpg&hash=b9085a31fb658ccabd4daa81d54ddd691014e7cb)
Turtles in Time ad #1
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv113%2Fpfloydguy2%2FTMNT%2520IV%2520Turtles%2520in%2520Time%2520ad%25201_zpsa29upc7u.jpg&hash=215b160d7cde9cb346714a92d5f11ac22d2b9c5d)
Turtles in Time ad #2
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv113%2Fpfloydguy2%2FTMNT%2520IV%2520Turtles%2520in%2520Time%2520ad%25202_zpstt8kyevn.jpg&hash=f443d3ea90cde7d232a39e3e3ba9c727a60178f1)
I've always wondered if anyone won that trip to Transylvania.
-
Late to the realization that Dubois also did Bloodlines and Belmont's Revenge.
I would kill for those originals.
That's right.
KILL.
(https://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fedgecast.buscafs.com%2Fwww.levelup.com%2Fpublic%2Fuploads%2Fimages%2F292279_832x600.jpg&hash=103b4905be17789837d5e4799aac94502a7daf5f)
-
That...thing...looks like it needs a good long shot from a Proton Pack. ???
-
PFG9000, where did you dig up all these ads?
I have an embarassingly thorough collection of game magazines from that era. Years ago when I was trying to figure out who this artist was, I noticed the similarity in art style. I'm sure there are more ads that he's done, but I haven't had a chance to go through any of the magazines yet to look for them.