Both my wife and I entered, and I just feel as if they could have at least picked something where the thesaurus was used. You know, instead of "Black" at least "Onyx"... errr. We spent some time entering.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]That was a pretty bland name, musta taken all but 4 minutes to come up with that.

In other WETA talk that Smaug the Golden Statue looks pretty awesome, with a pretty awesome price tag, tho.


http://wetanz.com/smaug-the-golden-faux-bronze/[/quote]

Nice statue, but how is 450 bucks an awesome price? It's ridiculously e xp ensive lol

[quote=""Darlak""]Nice statue, but how is 450 bucks an awesome price? It's ridiculously e xp ensive lol[/quote]


Awesome has more than one definition... one which is causing awe, appalling; awful, causing awe or terror, extremely impressive or daunting. Some synonyms = dreadful, horrible


Awesome has since become slang for good or cool... kind of like "bad"

Or Fat, phat, and pat!

I'm with Dar on this one. It is too e xp ensive for something I haven't seen in movie form yet.

Well its part of the John Howe collection and based upon his art he did for the Hobbit book. I have one (actually my 2nd) and had to deal with the whole base de-lamination issue.

He is pics of the fist with the bubbling veneer

and the new one with the faux marble.


Its rather large and limited to only 300 so for the money I thinks its worth it.

No denying that is one good-looking sculpture. I just want to see what it looks like on film before committing to buying something that e xp ensive. Basically, I want to know that I am pleased with how Smaug looks onscreen and that it matches the film's final version. Of course, by that time, these will all be gone, but I'm sure they will make another one. Doesn't mean I'm not envious of those who own this one.

Agreed, Val, it would suck to buy this and it is different from the final product and want that one too. But if you have the room and money, it is a great piece. I like coloured pieces better though.

[quote=""BladeCollector""]Awesome has more than one definition... one which is causing awe, appalling; awful, causing awe or terror, extremely impressive or daunting. Some synonyms = dreadful, horrible


Awesome has since become slang for good or cool... kind of like "bad"[/quote]

Well, awesome means awe inspiring, hence the word, and I'm not awed by that price, I'm filled with something akin to dread.

Anyways whatever.

I'd be all over it if it were actual bronze. Which, honestly, is something you should e xp ect from that price.

[quote=""Darlak""]I'd be all over it if it were actual bronze. Which, honestly, is something you should e xp ect from that price.[/quote]

It's not solid bronze? Or at least cast bronze?

I have to agree with Darlak that at the price it should be real bronze.
If it is a statue of what Smaug will be in the film, then we are clearly dealing with a six limbed creature.
I'm totally bummed at that!

Sorry that annoys you, Thrand, but that's how I want to see my Smaug. I can't stand dragons with no arms.

Bats, birds, pterodactyls; none of them have arms. I'd trust nature, and aesthetically prefer four-limbed overall. The only creature that comes to mind is Pegasus, which isn't real... and looks rather absurd with four legs dangling uselessly in flight.

But I've considered it a foregone conclusion since that's how Howe has always illustrated Smaug.

I hate to point out the obvious to someone as intelligent as you are, but... dragons are not real either.

[quote=""Valkrist""]I hate to point out the obvious to someone as intelligent as you are, but... dragons are not real either.[/quote]

Lol!!


No Rev, it's polystone painted to look like bronze. Hence the term faux bronze. They do make a real bronze one though, with (I believe) a real wood base as well. They'll make you one for a small fortune!

Honestly though, as nice as Smaug the Golden is, there's no way I could justify paying that much for it over paying for Rivendell, something much more worthy of that price range.

I just want the argonath, I think I'll just keep posting that until someone sels me theirs

With the sales you've been making and the re-selling you're planning, you could snatch up an Argonath anytime now! One of my Grails for sure, you should go for it.

I am officially starting and budgeting a fund called, "emergancy lotr" this way if I really really want it, I get it then and there.

[quote=""Valkrist""]I hate to point out the obvious to someone as intelligent as you are, but... dragons are not real either.[/quote]


Humor aside, don't you think if we're going to create something that doesn't exist, we should draw upon things that do? That way, since it's not real, we can make it realistic.

Being that Tolkien's series is supposed to represent early English history, I would assume that they will use at least the four legged Dragon given that all English crests either have six or four legs...

Sed, I do agree though, that is why I liked LOTR so much. Even the cave troll had a level of realism to it.

[quote=""Sedhal""]Humor aside, don't you think if we're going to create something that doesn't exist, we should draw upon things that do? That way, since it's not real, we can make it realistic.[/quote]

Of course, you could create something that doesn't exist by drawing idea from something that doesn't actually exist. The European dragon has been around forever though, and has almost always been depicted with 6 or more limbs. Dragons, at least in Norse mythology, where supposed to be giant fearsome creatures. If it were to have only two legs, it'd be much shorter, it would look stupid if it where too big. So they gave it a long slender form with four legs.

Personally I always liked six-limbed dragons. A bat like body would just be too animalistic and un-intelligent looking, which is the exact opposite of what Smaug is.

My main concern about Smaug isn't the limbs, however, it's the head. I'm almost e xp ecting them to mess it up.

I see both sides of the argument here. A 2 legged/2 Winged dragon would have to, in my mind be more slender and/or look more pterodactyl with its forelimbs as modified wings, so it could still crawl and grasp things.

I don't see a 2 legged/2 winged dragon like a bird and having only using its feet and mouth to manipulate objects with.

Yeah, I am definitely in the middle with 4 limbs plus wings. The English Dragon crest with six limbs, in my opinion looks a little silly. The Chinese Dragon usually has 4 legs, and that image dates back earlier than the English one. A nice balance between four legs and wings would make for a great menace (no T-rex little arm affect) and also, as seen in the statue, would add a bit of humanism to the dragon as he rests his head on his "hands".

Actually, some dragons depicted in viking carvings and stuff have more than 6 legs. Chinese dragon variants can also have lots of legs. Although I don't think dragons with more than 4 legs look good normally, they look awesome in tree carvings =)

All I know is he better not look like this

http://www.dragonspirits.org/LJ/Kingsford_at_Lib.jpg

Funny you say that Rev, I think four-limbed (2 legged + 2 winged) looks more human. If you're wondering how you could make one of these menacing, check out Reign of Fire. It's been discussed, but I don't see a connection with intelligence in the limbs, so much as the head and behavior of the creature in general. Six-limbed reminds me of: the furry dog from Neverending Story, Sean Connery in Dragonheart, and a galloping Pegasus in mid-air. Also, it's what you see on cast trinkets on hippies' tables at flea markets.

It seems anatomically awkward for a creature to have four dog-like legs, and a separate operating set of limbs on the back. It leaves the "shoulders" and "hips" really imbalanced concerning in-flight movement. I feel like the connotation to dogs, cats, etc makes Smaug feel more friendly and stereotypical altogether. I've said it before: I adore Howe's work, but his depiction of Smaug has always irked me, as it seems to be the generic mainstream concept of a dragon. And yes, it is the English dragon, which is exactly what I e xp ected here, so I'm not going to be disappointed when Smaug is on screen. I'm fully prepared, and know what to e xp ect. I've just always loathed that type of dragon. It seems so unimaginative and... typical.

That said, and my opinion on dragon limbs aside, I think I'd make Smaug six-limbed too. For one reason alone: to differentiate from the fellbeasts. As Darlak said, it's the head we should be more worried about.

Oh, I was getting your six limb mixed up with mine. The general English dragon has eight limbs: 6 legs 2 wings. I personally do not care for that, I am more for the dragon to be able to have more action by running on the ground. Reign of Fire was a way under rated movie and I agree, those dragons were as realistic as they get. But, I am saying for a Hobbit "talking" dragon if they are going to do only 2 legs, they are going to have to add some sort of claws to the wings to grab things. Otherwise, as just stated, Smaug is just a coloured Nazgul.

[quote=""RevAnakin""] they are going to have to add some sort of claws to the wings to grab things.[/quote]


Usually this is the case with such dragons. Even the fell beasts had claws, much like where bats' are jointed.

In any case, the limb issue really is secondary I believe to overall style. I could easily see both versions working for Smaug depending on how the rest of its portrayal is. Personally, I like the challenge presented here of making either work for those who are closed-off to the idea. Me with four legs and the others with two. I'd like to say "pfft it can be done!" but then I apply that to my own opinion -- four legs can be done, just as well. And as I said with the fell beasts, I'd rather entertain the challenge of making a four-legged Smaug work for me. But for the sake of argument, let's look at a few things:

Horizontal versus vertical. Smaug is a dragon, and thus: lizard-like, or serpentine in some way. Let's look at other such creatures with four legs and a tail: crocodiles, alligators, iguanas, etc. These guys are very low to the ground; very horizontal. They move horizontally on a flat plane. Add wings and suddenly they're moving on a vertical axis which severely contradicts their design by nature. They now have a set of wings dissecting a broad and flat body, whose purpose is now useless in the air.

And so we have horses, dogs, cats, cows, sheep, etc. A little longer-legged and "off the ground" so to speak. Yet now we have a rather squared-up axis, where the body is higher from the ground, but the balance is still spread across a flat area evenly. But now imagine one of these flying (how ridiculous did that cow look in Twister?) As I've said before, the legs either tuck in and look awkwardly useless, or drag/dangle. But we're still looking at a creature whose body is taller than it should be, due to the common four-legged build. But it's absurd to think they'd make a dragon with cow proportions, right? Right.

However, this is why I think drawing upon bats for two-legged makes a lot of sense. We have the body of a creature that can "walk"/crawl along a flat plane, adhere to a wall with a good center of gravity, but also shaped for believable flight. It's very horizontally-orientated when in flight, something a four-legged creature might have trouble assuming. That is, because the arms are integrated with the wings. They aren't an obstacle, but the most useful component to flight. And when it lands, the wings fold accordingly to accommodate the horizontal axis with vertical balance. So do you see what I'm saying?

In flight: vertical axis balanced with horizontal form

On ground: horizontal axis balanced with vertical form

The creatures that don't adhere to this do not fly and walk. But birds and bats, for the most part, do.


All that out of the way, my conclusion is to look at prehistoric times for some more fitting inspiration. Someone mentioned a T-Rex. This is actually a good consideration--if not for design, for diversity. The T-Rex obviously has legs and arms, the latter being very small. But let's look at something less extreme. The Velociraptor. Legs, arms, tail, reptilian head, etc.

The key here is that the legs do not need to be strictly legs, so I can maybe see something working where the hind legs are larger than the forelegs/arms, with the latter doubling to suit the case. This would allow a more vertical stance on the ground, when either rearing up, or ducking low like a panther (with hind legs raised significantly), and obviously be easier to conform to the torpedo shape of a flying creature.

Am I e xp laining this right?

I get your point Sed, and I even agree for most of the part. There is, however, a middle ground. Dragons are supposed to be magical creatures, who are fo rthe most part unrelated to other species. So does it have to have bodily proportions similar to that of either a dog or a komodo dragon? No, it can be something in-between. I've used warhammer minis before to show how I trhink the head should look (ish), and I'll do the same now for the body =P

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catal ... rod1140119 This first one shows how the front pair of legs would look perfectly good while in flight, as long as the front legs are a tad smaller than the hind legs. Obviously what I'm trying to show is the legs, so never mind the skinny body. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catal ... prod790844 I suppose this model is a better example, but the front legs are kinda hard to see on the pics.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer/W ... RAGON.html Then there is this (ridiculously awesome) model, which shows a dragon in a standing position. Imagine that dragon without front legs. Wouldn't look half as badass, would it?

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catal ... rod1080191 Lastly there is this one, from the LOTR range. While the front legs are too big, it shows how a dragon can have limbs proportioned somewhere between lizards and, well, dogs and cats and stuff. Would be totally awesome to have Smaug crawl around like that.

Oh, and dragons are probably one of the most realistic mythical creatures, six limbs or four. Ever seen a manticore, a chimera, or the sphinx? Quite far from realistic, right? =P

That is a great e xp lanation and I truly see the realism and logic in your points. My t Rex comment was just saying tiny arms look silly. The velociraptor is a good example. Back legs need to be longer than front period. Why, because as you said, the biology of it to lift off.

There's an old Disney flic called Dragon Slayer. At its time it was a pretty good dragon, I liked the forearm/wing look. It was really excellent in its cave crawling around; creepy like a bat.
While the FX leave a lot to be desired, it looked great in flight as well.

The banshee's in Avatar looked great when they landed on the trees escaping the "last shadow" (larger red predatory creature).

These are some of my case examples of what I think is a believable look.

Also, remember dragons are "worms" say Tolkien and although we should NOT take a literally translation of an earth worm with wings, I do think we need something a little less bird and a little more earthy. Dragons in tolkiens work don't live in the air, they are very earth bound except for attacks, so we do need an easily ground moving creature unlike the bat that craws and stumbles while walking (at least the Florida bats)

Actually Darlak, I think that gray one would look even more badass without the front legs. Think about it. When the wings fly back, that dragon is baring its chest and channeling a lot of energy in a clear and focused direction. It's menacing and intimidating. The boldness of it, I suppose. But with some little coiled arms there, it looks like it's just doing the dog-paddle in the air. The poses' dynamics really become limited in certain ways.

[quote=""Darlak""]Oh, and dragons are probably one of the most realistic mythical creatures, six limbs or four. Ever seen a manticore, a chimera, or the sphinx? Quite far from realistic, right? =P[/quote]

No, Darlak but you are so, so very wrong *shakes head*... If you look at the original translation of the Bible, we should note that dragons and chimeras ARE REAL. Dragon is mentioned in the Bible over 200 times and in Revelations, there is a monster: part lion, part goat, snake tail that breathes fire (CHIMERA!) Of course modern translations have taken these words out and replaced them with wolf and whale for dragon. And we all know that the Bible is 100% TRUE, so dragons are REAL and chimeras are REAL, because God would NEVER lie to us...ever...ever.

So, Tolkien being the wonderful Christian he was, wrote Smaug in honor of all the dragons wrote about in the Bible... Don't you see, they aren't mythical! Every Christian should have a pet dragon...

[quote=""RevAnakin""]No, Darlak but you are so, so very wrong *shakes head*... If you look at the original translation of the Bible, we should note that dragons and chimeras ARE REAL. Dragon is mentioned in the Bible over 200 times and in Revelations, there is a monster: part lion, part goat, snake tail that breathes fire (CHIMERA!) Of course modern translations have taken these words out and replaced them with wolf and whale for dragon. And we all know that the Bible is 100% TRUE, so dragons are REAL and chimeras are REAL, because God would NEVER lie to us...ever...ever.

So, Tolkien being the wonderful Christian he was, wrote Smaug in honor of all the dragons wrote about in the Bible... Don't you see, they aren't mythical! Every Christian should have a pet dragon...[/quote]

Oh, but I guess that settles it then, Smaug has to have 4 legs, as real dragons have four legs. I mean, of course the traditional European dragon is in the bible, right?

Last edited by BladeCollector; 15 Hours Ago at 09:00 PM..

What exactly was edited in my last post?


Rev, you might want to be more respectful, as we have some fairly religious members here and we probably shouldn't stray into that topic. Just a heads up.

Sed, the word "badass" was edited out and then re-edited back in after we decided that it is acceptable. It's all about context.

Also, Rev... do heed Sed's wise words: mocking of religion or faith in general, regardless of denomination, will not be tolerated on this forum. To say that it is a touchy subject is the understatement of the century.

Back to the topic of Weta statues. Further discussion of dragons and their anatomy should resume in the Hobbit thread if related to Tolkien, the book, and how Smaug will appear in the movie.

I was just using the term Darlak used to describe that dragon, hence why any other word wouldn't have been suitable (in fact, it's hard to think of an alternative to it).


But I guess these threads are read from the bottom up.

[quote=""Sedhal""]Rev, you might want to be more respectful, as we have some fairly religious members here and we probably shouldn't stray into that topic. Just a heads up. [/quote]

I think this is hilarious coming from Sed, awesome!

DARLAK!

But, I would say that Smaug will end up having 4 limbs and two wings.

Whether there is sarcasm behind the words or not, the point remains that the words themselves are right, as is my caution to you. Please acknowledge me at least, and let's move on.

Just double checking, if we get scolded, it isn't good enough to just move on? Is it in the rules to "acknowledge" after a scuffle? I got the thread back on track, I would assume that that was good enough.

Back on topic again:

Quote from Hobbit, "Here he lay, a vast red-golden dragon, fast asleep; thrumming came from his jaws and nostrils, and wisps of smoke, but his fires were low in slumber. Beneath him, under all his limbs and his huge coiled tail, and about him on all sides stretching away across the unseen floors, lay countless piles of precious things, gold wrought and unwrought, gems and jewels, and silver red-stained in the ruddy light."

It would seem to me that if he only had two legs it would not be written, beneath all his limbs.

I'm not scolding you; I'm warning you.

It's not in the rules to acknowledge, but it is common courtesy to me given that you are in the wrong. Otherwise, it does make me feel that you are ignoring what I said. That way, if it happens again, you can't claim ignorance of my words. Understood?

That is why I love you Val, so diplomatic. I wish I had a dad or brother like you. Acknoledgement made and no ignoranc be to be claimed. My enlightenment is fully in my awareness.

That's all I ask. Thank you.

"Limbs" doesn't only refer to legs. An arm is a limb. Any protruding appendage is technically a limb, especially with fantastical monster anatomy. The wings would indeed be considered limbs, as there are bones inside of it and double as arms.

I think the discussion about limbs and dragons and how many they should have could go on forever.

If someone would like to discuss dragons and other mythical creatures and what they should/could look like, there is plenty room on the forums to make a "Fantasy Creatures" Thread.

Other than that.....

Any new WETA announcements lately?

[quote=""BladeCollector""]
Any new WETA announcements lately?[/quote]

Unfortunately, nothing since Comic-Con. Although, based on some tips from Tim over on the S&F, it looks like there's going to be a new Art Print soon. Still need to get the first one, though...

Did anyone get the new Zealand map with all the shooting locations?

[quote=""RevAnakin""]Did anyone get the new Zealand map with all the shooting locations?[/quote]

Yes, I have it. I bought it when I went to Weta Cave. That was before you could buy it online. It's pretty neat!

Cool, thanks Arwyniel! It is probably the first thing on my list to buy. I really like Weta but some of the stuff (like the mini shields) are way overpriced IMO.