Gul'dan will be ressurected like Illidan?

[Therikan]

For the people commenting on Sargera's size. He is a Titan, and ridiculously powerful, one could assume that he may have some level of shapeshifting in the sense of altering his size. More or less like Archimonde, as explained during the war of the ancients and other sources that he could alter his size at wil.

Even in Chronicles the titans meet on some planet when Sargeras kills them all, they would have to be smaller than the place to be at the place... or they would just be space wandering colossus 100% of the time.

[FelPlague]

*Scrolls up, sees no pictures.*
wat.jpg again



Avatar of Sargeras =/= Sargeras. The Avatar of Sargeras is a small portion of the Dark Titan's power manifested into a being on Azeroth. Aegwynn killed and buried the remains in the Tomb of Sargeras.

I legitimately laughed that you did not know the difference between Sargeras and his Avatar.

omfg... would you wait a second? as i was saying, look in the two pictures.. both are about the same size, both are not planet sized... but one is called sargeras, other is avatar of sargeras, dude, wait a second

[Deleted]

yes but when your making a book to be specificly "this is the book to go off ,its 100% correct, any retcons anything it goes over" it should be as accurate as possible, and shrinking down sargeras is not being accurate, also no her models havent allways been cannon, for example her old model where she was a nightelf is not cannon

I try it one more time, then I give up, because it seems you don't want to understand.

1) It is artwork. This is not an anatomical guideline of how to draw Sargeras. The artist drew, what he thought ws a cool picture of Sargeras leading his Legion. For this purpose he shrunk down Sargeras (he's still huge, mind you) and showed him as this imposing leader of this army. The fact, that the artist used his artistic license to create, what he thought was a cool picture, does in no way invalidate any other content in this book. It is not a lie. This is a piece of art that shows Sargeras. This is what Sargeras looks like, even if he is smaller that he would be in reality.

2) That you choose to intentionally lie about what is being presented doesn't help your case

has two versions of sargeras's avatar, differant looks, but lables one as the actual sargeras

No. They are not two versions of the avatar of Sargeras. It's one picture of the Avatar of Sargeras and one of Sargeras himself

3) So then please tell me, which of the three current artworks currently presented in official Blizzard Products are canon. Is it the comic-like loading screen Sylvanas, the ingame model or the model from the Legion cinematic. You seem to know better which version of art is canon than Blizzard does.

[FelPlague]

For the people commenting on Sargera's size. He is a Titan, and ridiculously powerful, one could assume that he may have some level of shapeshifting in the sense of altering his size. More or less like Archimonde, as explained during the war of the ancients and other sources that he could alter his size at wil.

Even in Chronicles the titans meet on some planet when Sargeras kills them all, they would have to be smaller than the place to be at the place... or they would just be space wandering colossus 100% of the time.

no, they cannot, for example, if he and the other titans could, why were they not shrinking themselves down to help during the war, they dident help because hey were so big so anythign they did would harm the planet, so if they could shrink themselves down, dont you think they would?

[Gemini Soul]

They are not demons, they are aliens! Demons don't have space ships, Aliens do! lol

[Deleted]

The vast majority (not all) but the vast majority is just incorrect assumptions and lack of knowledge of the actual lore, there is actually very little lazy writing if any in illidans entire lore, just people haven't read it and jump straight onto excuses or accusations.

[RedGamer030]

as i was saying, look in the two pictures..

I am only going to say this ONE MORE TIME...

THESE pictures are of Sargeras:


And THIS picture is of the Avatar of Sargeras:

[Aeluron Lightsong]

That does not excuse shoddy logic. <BOOM MAGIC!!> is lazy writing but this kind of reasoning that Blizzard's employs needs to be highlighted. If they are going with one kind of reasoning....but only to then universally ignore it is bad, bad, BAD work.

Being a fantasy game does not give it a pass, it in fact makes it even worse.

It actually does, you just can't accept it. Making a real life comparison didn't help your point either. Also I played the Demon Hunter experience, I didn't see any contradictions in it so I don't know what you're going on about.

[Ulfric Trumpcloak]

Every character in WoW can be resurrected, they don't need an excuse. Didn't they just bring back for class/order halls like a million characters that were supposed to be dead? The VanCleef chick being one of them.

And didn't they just kill Mograine who was already dead just to bring him back again? Nobody really dies in WoW. _________ was merely a setback!

[FelPlague]

I try it one more time, then I give up, because it seems you don't want to understand.

1) It is artwork. This is not an anatomical guideline of how to draw Sargeras. The artist drew, what he thought ws a cool picture of Sargeras leading his Legion. For this purpose he shrunk down Sargeras (he's still huge, mind you) and showed him as this imposing leader of this army. The fact, that the artist used his artistic license to create, what he thought was a cool picture, does in no way invalidate any other content in this book. It is not a lie. This is a piece of art that shows Sargeras. This is what Sargeras looks like, even if he is smaller that he would be in reality.

2) That you choose to intentionally lie about what is being presented doesn't help your case
No. They are not two versions of the avatar of Sargeras. It's one picture of the Avatar of Sargeras and one of Sargeras himself

3) So then please tell me, which of the three current artworks currently presented in official Blizzard Products are canon. Is it the comic-like loading screen Sylvanas, the ingame model or the model from the Legion cinematic. You seem to know better which version of art is canon than Blizzard does.

1. and thats why im saying, the artwork is not 100% cannon, because the artists changed things, to be a "cool picture" if somone takes fact, and changes it around to their will to be "cooler" is it still fact

heres some fact "lincon dident die he is actuallty god" come on thats fact, i just changed it around abit to be cooler!

2. i lie about? as im saying, either both are avatars, or one is a avatar, and the other has shrunk him down, showing they dont care about accuracy in the art

3. well the model for the cinematicd and ingame are not very differant, so most likley both, but again, its all blizzards choice, but most likley ingame

- - - Updated - - -

I am only going to say this ONE MORE TIME...

THESE pictures are of Sargeras: and notice how you refuse to notice "oh hey one is leading a army, with them, the other is bigger then a planet chopping it in half... yeah so the same size


And THIS picture is of the Avatar of Sargeras:

dude are you even going to read my post?

Guess what. Whenever an artist draws a character he will look different. Look at all the different versions there are of, for example, Sylvanas. There's a comic style look, there's her ingame model, there's her model in the Legion cinematic. All of them look vastly different. All of them are 100% canon. I don't know why the size of argeras in that one picture is so important to you. The artist wanted to show a cool picture of Sargeras leading an army. This is what Sargeras looks like, confirmed by how similar his Avatar looks. This is NOT a text book. There is no "lie".

yes but when your making a book to be specificly "this is the book to go off ,its 100% correct, any retcons anything it goes over" it should be as accurate as possible, and shrinking down sargeras is not being accurate, also no her models havent allways been cannon, for example her old model where she was a nightelf is not cannon

- - - Updated - - -

wat.jpg

The two versions of Sargeras in the Chronicle is first his Titan version and then his Dark Titan version... And where the hell do you see him only the size of a Pitlord???

look at my pictures, they are both about the same size, but one is named avatar of sargeras, other sargeras, also there is one of him before he became all "fel infused" where he slices a planet in half

also in the one that says "sargeras" where hes green, there is a pitlord allmost as big as him that is super far in the background, so he would be about the same size





so notice how the first, and the third dont call him avatar... so they are the same... but notice the size differance?




and here notices how tiny therzane is compared to the other elementle lords?



and this one notice how humanoids are servng here? and if you zoom in close, they do not look ANYTHING like insects, 2 legs, 2 arms, round head, rather small, and at this point there was no humanoids serving them, as the constructs were rather new, did not have the curse of fleash, and woudl be killed not forced to serve the old gods...


so really the art seems to be there more of a "looks cool eh?" and "here is the general idea" but not to be 100% accurate, so who knows, sargeras may be green, or red, who knows

[RedGamer030]

so notice how the first, and the third dont call him avatar... so they are the same...

EXACTLY!!! SO YOU DO UNDERSTAND!!! But then you throw it all away for NO REASON!?! What the FUCK is wrong with you???

[FelPlague]

EXACTLY!!! SO YOU DO UNDERSTAND!!! But then you throw it all away for NO REASON!?! What the FUCK is wrong with you???

what are you...

ok so, the first one says "sargeras" and shows him about the same size as a pitlord

the seconde one says avatar of sargeras, and shows him about the same size

the third one says sargeras again, so he must be the same as the first one right? NOPE hes bigger then a planet...

[RedGamer030]

ok so, the first one says "sargeras" and shows him about the same size as a pitlord

NO IT DOES NOT! NO IT FUCKING DOES NOT!!! How can you be so DENSE and MORONIC???

I ma so done... I cannot help you... You are beyond even my capabilities... If I try just one more time my head will explode at the surprising amount of incomprehensible bullshit you say and claim it makes sense... The utter stupidity of it all is beginning to KILL ME!!!

[Deleted]

1. and thats why im saying, the artwork is not 100% cannon, because the artists changed things, to be a "cool picture" if somone takes fact, and changes it around to their will to be "cooler" is it still fact

heres some fact "lincon dident die he is actuallty god" come on thats fact, i just changed it around abit to be cooler!

2. i lie about? as im saying, either both are avatars, or one is a avatar, and the other has shrunk him down, showing they dont care about accuracy in the art

3. well the model for the cinematicd and ingame are not very differant, so most likley both, but again, its all blizzards choice, but most likley ingame

You don't know how art works don't you? The Mona Lisa probably looked a little bit different. Van Gogh's Midnight Dream probably isn't something that exists in the real world. Sometimes poets ignore parts of the rules of grammar to make their line work better. Google artistic license.

This is not a text book. This is not science.

EDIT: Could you please stop editing the same huge pictures into your post? I just had to edit my post because it turned into a monstrosity, thank you.

NO IT DOES NOT! NO IT FUCKING DOES NOT!!! How can you be so DENSE and MORONIC???

I ma so done... I cannot help you... You are beyond even my capabilities... If I try just one more time my head will explode at the surprising amount of incomprehensible bullshit you say and claim it makes sense... The utter stupidity of it all is beginning to KILL ME!!!

Please don't insult anbody.

Though I wouldn't say it with his words, your stubborness is really getting grating. This is not a fun discussion. it feels like talking with a wall. No matter what we say to you, you just keep on repeating the same stuff. You never try to engage in discussion. This is why I'm leaving. I was hoping to have a cool discussion about artwork, but this is just annoying and a waste of time.

[FelPlague]

You don't know how art works don't you? The Mona Lisa probably looked a little bit different. Van Gogh's Midnight Dream probably isn't something that exists in the real world. Sometimes poets ignore parts of the rules of grammar to make their line work better. Google artistic license.

This is not a text book. This is not science.

OMFG

dude... when you want to draw art yes... feel free to do whatever you want, make it look nice, make it look fancy...

BUT THE ISSUE IS

you cannot just change things if its suppose to be FACT

if the art in the book is suppose to be 100% true, you should not just change it cause "eh whatever"

back the to map thing

you make a map, that will be used for being the "100% true map" and you are drawing it, then make america much bigger cause "it looks cooler" that map is no longer fact it is false, i am so confused how you do not see the issue with this

i put them in because he was not able to google them

but again, this book is suppose to be the text book of wow lore, and yet your saying "your allowed to change how stuff looks for art" well that makes the art no longer true does it?

[Deleted]

OMFG

dude... when you want to draw art yes... feel free to do whatever you want, make it look nice, make it look fancy...

BUT THE ISSUE IS

you cannot just change things if its suppose to be FACT

if the art in the book is suppose to be 100% true, you should not just change it cause "eh whatever"

back the to map thing

you make a map, that will be used for being the "100% true map" and you are drawing it, then make america much bigger cause "it looks cooler" that map is no longer fact it is false, i am so confused how you do not see the issue with this

Because a map and art are two VERY different things, as I already told you.

[RedGamer030]

Please don't insult anbody.

I already did and I am never taking it back. This person is the DEFINITION of clueless and helpless.

[FelPlague]

Because a map and art are two VERY different things, as I already told you.

not when the art is suppose to be the "this is what is real"

if you do not see the issue i dont know what i can say, if your fine with changing what is suppose to be fact to be "cooler" and still call it true, then idk what to say...

i am amazed, somone can think "yeah changing something to no longer be fact ,them calling it fact is fine!"

under your logic i can get a peice of art from a history textbook of lincon, make him a cyborg, put it in, and still call the art in the book "fact" ?

[Deleted]

not when the art is suppose to be the "this is what is real"

if you do not see the issue i dont know what i can say, if your fine with changing what is suppose to be fact to be "cooler" and still call it true, then idk what to say...

It appears that we have two very different views about what artwork should do. This discussion is useless. Bye.

[FelPlague]

It appears that we have two very different views about what artwork should do. This discussion is useless. Bye.

-_- artwork can be made to be whatever you want it to be, but when your making art that should be 100% true, you should not take "artists liberties" and change it, as said above

what if the guy who had to draw lincon for the history books made him a cyborg, or had to draw the earth made it 1 million times larger then the sun

its art, you can change it, even though its suppose to be accurate ,sure lets change it so its no longer accurate, in a place its suppose to be accurate

if your painting a painting just to paint, go ahead, make stuff inaccurate just to make it look better, but if your making something to be accurate, make it accurate, dont suddenly go "eh im suppose to draw how a lion looks for this but im gunna give it lazers and black and white fur cause thats cool!

its plain and simple, artwork made to look nice, go ahead make it as inaccurate to real life as you like, make a fucking lazer shark

but when artwork is made to be accurate to the real thing, dont take liberties, follow the scource material 100%, dont make a drawing of the industrial revolution for the history books, where is all sunny cheery white and happy, everyone is rich and happy and healthy, rainbows and unicorns, draw it ACCURATELY

because what your saying is a drawing, where the artist took liberties, shrinking down the charecter in it 10 times over, is still accurate, cause come on, the artist only changed some of it for his own doing