The NAC is easily in my top 10 all time vehicles. That thing is fun. And unlike the tomahawk, was built for heavy play.

The picture is totally based on the NAC or at the very least whatever the NAC might have been based on. The rocket pods, the air vents above the cockpit, the cockpit itself, the side running boards, the intake, the rear cargo doors, they all match up with the NAC and not with a Clone Wars drop ship.

_________________

Yeah I don't know if the NAC was used for that image, but I know as someone who designs t-shirts, I look for inspiration anywhere. I know it's the same in just about all art. So there's no real reason it couldn't have been thought of.

As for the toy it's self, yeah it's in my top 10 as well. I'm more of a jet/plane guy myself and tend to lean towards the Skystriker and other jets as favorites. Even the Dragonfly isn't quite in my top 10, but the NAC is!

_________________

The cover artists absolutely used photos of the NAC for reference and digitally painted over them. (I suppose that last bit is speculation. he could have used the images as reference for a physical painting, but my hunch is this is digitally done).

Just look at any of the features on the painted cover.

The drop ship has the same hull shape, same angles and extrusions, as the NAC.

The drop ship canopy has the same shape, same curves and contours, as the NAC.

The drop ship has the same engines where the wings meat the top of the body, as the NAC.

The drop ship has the same hanging wing cannon, with the same number of "barrels" (5), as the NAC.

The drop ship has the exact same side weapon placements as the NAC. He's replaced the side chain gun with another "wing cannon," but the placement is the same.

The drop ship has the same rotating chin weapon placement as the NAC. I can't tell if he's replaced it with another "wing cannon" or fancied up the chain gun.

He took photos, and used them as a basis for his dropship design. That's not a coincidence or simple inspiration. I should also note that I don't think there's anything WRONG with how he utilized it, as he's turned it into something different and while it doesn't match my mind's eye version of the ST dropship, is certainly works.

While it's possible this cover predates the release of the NAC, and that they're based on the same reference image, I think the details and proportions match up way to close to be anything other than being based on the toy itself.

A little more research:

NAC is 2002.

This cover appears to originate with the 2006 Ace Paper Back edition, though has been used for the ebook cover of the 1987 edition (which explains some of the timeline confusion). source: http://www.goodreads.com/work/editions/2534973

What I can't find quickly is a good contact for Ace Books. Does the book name the cover artist? Find the guy, shoot him an e-mail, and solve this mystery!

_________________

Ace Books is owned by Penguin Publishing. http://us.penguingroup.com/static/pages ... actus.html

_________________

If anyone actually owns the book, the copyright info for the cover art should be on the first page.

_________________

cover art by Steve Stone
cover design by Annette Fiore DeFex

inside says Ace Premium Edition 2010 as well....
for same cover....
also edited first image to show the side view for those that don't own the chopper to see the side as well.....


another book the artist has done......

_________________

Somebody tells Hasbro!

_________________

quit reading my mind I was thinking that as well...

_________________

That is 95% a exact cop of the NAC helicopter, I had at one point five of them, right on the money.
It also looks like the intakes closest to the center of the canopy are one of the SA weapons backwards from the JVC era.
On top of that, the same goes for the missile launcher under the pilot area. You can still see the trigger coming out of it. Whoever made the design had a bunch of Joe pieces, and or a collector, or had a kid during the JVC era.

***It's literally a picture of the stock NAC, with a few extra random Joe pieces photochopped on top of the picture.
To make it look more original. I do this kind of stuff for a career, so I can see everything he messed up on... so to speak.

_________________

I found a contact for Steve Stone (artist) and sent his NY connection office the question on if he drew inspiration from the NAC or if might get him for using the NAC on two different books... also sent them a link to this thread...so maybe he'll join up and respond... the female at the NY office said she forwarded my question and will let him answer me himself....

_________________

Man. I think the Starship Troopers cover is a legit use of taking the image and turning it into something similar, but original.

The Judas Unchained cover is just... horrible. He's done very little to change it from the NAC, and what photoshop has been done has been done pretty poorly imho.

_________________

I've seen plenty of sci-fi covers over the last decade, and they are all done the same way, cheap and fast, because that's what kind of Pay the artist's get. Don't judge the artist over the art, especially if it's pay by the hour.
You'd be suprised how cheap a multi-million dollar pubishing company can be.

_________________

Hey guys. As a real life full time fantasy sci-fi illustrator (everything from Star Wars Galaxies to Magic: The Gathering and a ton of stuff in between) I thought I'd chime in with some quick, general insights. Most of this has already been noted, but I can confrim that a lot of the things mentioned about how the art gets made are true - in general even if they don't apply specifically to the work being discussed in this thread. It would be great if the actual illustrator who did the cover replies to the inquiry that was sent to him, but here are some things to think about.

First, as has been noted, illustrators often work for comparatively low pay (contrasted against more traditional hourly or salaried wages) so we use as many techniques as we can to work fast and (hopefully) get good results. This is something artists have had to deal with since the dawn of time. Even the old "Masters" had ways of lessening their work load. They used all kinds of techniques to copy, trace and otherwise shorten their working time - including the notion of "studios" where other artists finished the "master's" work falls into this territory. They also worked from live reference as often as possible so they could get the most realisitc results. Now, in adiditon to those old techniques, artists can easily work from (and sometimes over) photos and digital models, so there's always some source to go to to help achieve better results.

Very few artists make things up completely in their minds, and even those who do often use formulas or standardized techniques to achieve the results. A good example of this is comic book artists who can work so fast and get consistent results - they learn a visual vocabulary of techniques they can use for the basics and then add to them as time and budget allow. Or not. There are no absolutes, and if the client or fans are happy, then ythe artsist has done her/his job. Contract work rarely has the luxury of being about personal expression or extreme attention to detail. Usually, the artist is trying to do the best work they can in a less than ideal amount of time for a client who may not be very appreciative of the work - at least financially. Most artists will use a variety of techniques on a project, the idea being that you do what you have to get the work in on time and make a happy client, so hopefully they will hire you again or the work you've done will get you a gig with a better paying client the next time.

It was mentioned that now, in the digital age, artists will often work over photographs. I'd add that more and more illustrators are working with 3-D models. In the case of the models, these are often developed by independent modeller and purchased from a site like Turbosquid, then used as a reference or base structure to wok over. The illustrator may not know if something was modelled on an existing concept. Also, some illustrators make the models themselves and create fully rendered scenes. A number of people I know use Poser as a basis for their figureative work, lighting and positioning figures, then adding their own details over that. In this situation it wouldn't surprise me if the artist was working from a 3-D model someone had made (or the artist made himself) then used that model as a basis for the 2 pieces of art. The second piece looks a lot like a full on 3D render, and the first might be the same, just more heavily manipulated.

I can't speak for anyone else, but in my own work I try very hard to alter anything I reference to make it my own. I try to treat the reference as a framework rather than a direct source, unless it's a reference I wholly create (like a costumed model or a maquette I build, light and photograph). Even then, sometimes a viewer will pick up on something they think they see - I did a character piece for the Legend of the Five Rings game which a number of people think looks a LOT like the actress Summer Glau. My research and referencing had nothing to do with her, but the viewers see the likeness.

I think in thie case of this copter, somewhere down the line, someone was inspired by the NAC, but even if it wasn't, it isn't uncommon for viewers to make those kinds of connections.

I can understand that... and like I said, I actually think the Starship Troopers cover is good for what it is and falls under perfectly fair use of the NAC image it's based on.

The other one though is embarrassingly bad copy-pasta photochop. I think he's just done some leveling and curves to give the NAC a bit more of a rendered look, because I don't think anyone would have made a 3D model that included the spring-loaded trigger on that nose cannon (if anyone's bothered to make a 3D model of the NAC at all). If he did as a favor for some, okay. If he got PAID for that, someone should be reimbursed.

_________________

I think it's some small number like 5% or so that is all the law requires before there is no issue. Also you can't use logos. If the item was changed just 5% and all logos are not present, there is no violation. There's no helicopter blades and several other details are changed, so I would say there is nothing Hasbro could really do about it. Sure they could send out cease and desist letters, but I'm sure they'd be ignored.

_________________