|
Post by Dante on Jul 22, 2014 10:30:40 GMT -5
Update: See Reply #8. Cover confirmed, but with revised art. -~< You may have seen my thread for the Hardie Grant Egmont ?3 draft covers, which give us an idea of what the book will look like on Australia and New Zealand's store shelves, but today I've also turned up what appears to be Egmont UK's version of the cover, and there's nothing to indicate that it's non-final. Please note, though, that it won't be confirmed final until it turns up on an official Egmont outlet; this cover I got from Amazon. That said, it's consistent with the Hardie Grant Egmont covers, but with some twists of its own, including a brand-new piece of art that's presumably taken from the back cover or dustjacket flap of the Little Brown edition. For context, here are Egmont's covers for ?1 and ?2 in the U.K.: And click the spoiler to reveal the cover the U.K. will probably be getting for ?3: Edit: Update: 667 Dark Avenue's Twitter tweeted this news, and Egmont retweeted it, adding: "A mystery is solved with a story. That's all we are saying." Conversation here. That's implicit confirmation, then - this will almost certainly be the U.K.'s cover for ?3. Shouldn't You Be In School? will be published on September 30th. Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by A comet crashing into Earth on Jul 22, 2014 12:02:16 GMT -5
I'm a little disappointed, although it was only to be expected, that the format seems to be the same as ?2. Partially because I think it feels weird, and partially because now that the first two books are different formats, it would be better to get a different one for each new book. That could be handwaved as 'eclectic'.
As for the fact that were back on a single illustration as opposed to a partial view of each, that's fine by me. I think that's prettier on the whole, although I'm obviously a bit sad on missing out on some of the artwork.
Blue spine suggests blue illustrations?
Ooh, and what's that skull-adorned crate at the bottom?
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jul 22, 2014 13:25:38 GMT -5
Blue spine suggests blue illustrations? I am worried that Egmont might not have been able to do the orange illustrations from the American edition, and are reverting back to blue instead. It's hard to tell. Bottles of poison? Matchboxes? My first thought was a bomb.
|
|
|
Post by Isadora Is a Door on Jul 22, 2014 14:24:11 GMT -5
yes, dante, i'm also worried about the illustrations
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jul 22, 2014 16:48:56 GMT -5
Edit: Update: 667 Dark Avenue's Twitter tweeted this news, and Egmont retweeted it, adding: "A mystery is solved with a story. That's all we are saying." Conversation here. That's implicit confirmation, then - this will almost certainly be the U.K.'s cover for ?3. There you have it, folks.
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Jul 22, 2014 21:07:03 GMT -5
Nice. Much better than the previous drafts. And interesting about the small illustration at the bottom not being anywhere on the US cover.
|
|
|
Post by The Duchess on Jul 26, 2014 20:20:06 GMT -5
I prefer the format of ?2, but at least they have my favorite illustration. I wonder if the mysterious ninja girl is Ellington.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Jul 27, 2014 4:13:37 GMT -5
I would have thought so. It kinda looks like she's escaping a prison, but leaping in or out the walls of the Wade Academy seems more likely. She went to school in Killdeer Fields, so she might even have a school uniform handy for a disguise.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 16, 2014 5:15:09 GMT -5
Egmont have confirmed this art with a picture of a physical copy of their ?3 on Twitter. Here's something interesting, though: Compare the picture above to the earlier version in the first post, and to LB's ?3 cover: Do you see? They've edited the art slightly. The girl's silhouette now includes a silhouette of her bag, which it didn't before; the silhouette's braids have also been detailed, whereas in the older versions they just look like giant rabbit ears; and lastly, the silhouette's right arm has been redrawn so as to be shorter and so as not to actually protrude outside the light. So the art in general has been touched up, improved. You can't see the right arm's full silhouette on the LB cover, but I would expect the bag and braid revisions to carry over to LB's cover, since, you know. They really should be there.
|
|
|
Post by bandit on Sept 16, 2014 10:02:20 GMT -5
I find it creepy how all of Seth's characters have five fingers, they should touch up that too.
|
|
|
Post by B. on Sept 16, 2014 10:11:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Poe's Coats Host Toast on Sept 16, 2014 12:08:55 GMT -5
^That was the first thing I thought when I saw the picture I find it creepy how all of Seth's characters have five fingers, they should touch up that too. Why "creepy"? You may find it overdetailed, but it's less cartoony than the abnormal 4-fingers thing; plus, the illustrations have five fingers in previous books as well.
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Sept 16, 2014 13:45:30 GMT -5
I wish. Actually, as far as I can tell, Hachette haven't sent out advance copies of ?3 to anyone. The book comes out in a fortnight; for ?1 and ?2, advance copies would've arrived in the hands of those lucky enough to get them weeks ago.
|
|
|
Post by Teleram on Sept 16, 2014 14:34:16 GMT -5
I find it creepy how all of Seth's characters have five fingers, they should touch up that too. Why "creepy"? You may find it overdetailed, but it's less cartoony than the abnormal 4-fingers thing; plus, the illustrations have five fingers in previous books as well. I think Bandit's just trying to be funny, implying that he doesn't have 5 fingers in each hand.
|
|
|
Post by bandit on Sept 16, 2014 16:28:02 GMT -5
See, the reason it's funny is that I'm implying the 4-finger thing has become so common that I'm surprised and disturbed to see a realistic hand, instead of the other way around. >:/ Now laugh!
|
|