|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ilmarinen
Registered User
Apr 12 2014, 12:13pm
Post #1 of 24
(1638 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Why Smaug is NOT a wyvern
|
Can't Post
|
|
So since the release of DOS. On the web, Smaug has been singled out as not a dragon but a wyvern. I'm not sure why Smaug's design in particular has been subject to this criticism, since the dragons in Game of Thrones and Harry Potter follow the same design. It's quite frustrating and just wrong. So, if you see people claiming that Smaug is not a dragon on the web, please correct their mistake.
1. Smaug in films is NOT a wyvern. He has front legs and claws. They are simply attached to his wings.
2. A wyvern IS a dragon, anyway.
3. The distinction between a wyvern and a dragon is a heraldic distinction not a mythological one. The distinction is used to help people understand, describe and define heraldic devices, not mythological creatures.
4. This heraldic distinction is modern not medieval or ancient, 17th century at least.
5. Fafnir (one of Tolkiens main inspirations for smaug) and other germanic worms are often depicted depicted without any legs or with a single pair. Smaug is clearly intended to be a germanic lindworm or wyrm.
6. Whether you are a dragon or not is not determined by the number of legs you have, your size, shape, wings or whether you can breath fire. This is not just the case in myth and legend across the world but also in Tolkien's work-where wingless and legless dragons are described.
Does the film go against Tolkien's design? Yes.
But is the film Smaug a dragon? Of course he is.
|
|
|
demnation
Rohan
Apr 12 2014, 12:16pm
Post #2 of 24
(1324 views)
Shortcut
|
Being technical about a mythological creature is a bit pointless, really. (Talking about the people who insist he's a wyvren, not you.)
"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." Gandalf, "The Last Debate."
|
|
|
Timdalf
Rivendell
Apr 12 2014, 1:16pm
Post #3 of 24
(1326 views)
Shortcut
|
can be seen around Highclere Castle (aka Downton Abbey) curing the PBS show. They show up (among other places) just outside the main entrance door as boot scrapers, or on the mantle pieces in the rooms, and there is a free standing terra cotta one in the entrance hall. They are the heraldic beast of the Carnarvon family. Note the lack of claws or limbs in the wings!
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/72690981458495068/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/72690981458495082/
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Apr 12 2014, 2:01pm
Post #4 of 24
(1311 views)
Shortcut
|
is that the author drew Smaug and put him on the front cover. And he is a different shape, clearly has four legs and two wings, and the legs and wings are not attached, and he is a different colour scheme.
It can be argued over which design is best or what people prefer, but not that it represents the dragon described in the book- as it clearly does not.
People can call it a Wyvern or a Dragon, it doesn't really matter either way- but its not Smaug, and that does matter.
|
|
|
Ilmarinen
Registered User
Apr 12 2014, 2:24pm
Post #6 of 24
(1277 views)
Shortcut
|
Firstly the point I was making is that you could not call him a wyvern.
Secondly, I completely understand this point of view. And I sympathise. But Tolkien's illustrations contradict themselves. For example Tolkien drew two alternative designs for orthanc, which are both very different. Tolkien also loved love pauline bayne's illustrations of his work, which are very different to his.
Since Tolkien did not have a dogmatic vision of middle earth, I don't think we need too.
(This post was edited by Ilmarinen on Apr 12 2014, 2:25pm)
|
|
|
book Gandalf
Rohan
Apr 12 2014, 2:27pm
Post #7 of 24
(1272 views)
Shortcut
|
the only reason people think smaug is a wyvern, is because in the film they gave him two limbs instead of four. if they had designed him like tolkien clearly points out, then there might not be this silly argument.
smaug is my biggest gripe with the films. i enjoy the dragon and he looks great. but he is not anyway like smaug, and they completely ruined the vain sleeping dragon, invisible thief vibe.
This is a serious journey, not a hobbit walking-party.
|
|
|
MechaGodzilla
Rivendell
Apr 12 2014, 2:40pm
Post #8 of 24
(1255 views)
Shortcut
|
At least that's what I've heard. According to rumors the real Smaug's narcissism is so extreme, after he filmed the prologue for the theatrical edition of AUJ and broke his claws digging into the gold, he left the project, not wanting to be shown in such a state in the remaining two films.
Peter and his crew managed to get in touch with his cousin Smog, who after spending all his life living in his more famous cousin's shadow was all too happy for the attention, even if it meant pretending to be said cousin. They ran into a bit of a problem when they realized Smog only has four limbs, unlike Smaug's more traditional six. Thankfully, through the marvels of modern technology they could digitally replace Smaug with Smog for the extended edition and continuity was saved.
|
|
|
BlackFox
Half-elven
Apr 12 2014, 2:52pm
Post #9 of 24
(1239 views)
Shortcut
|
Of course! I should have guessed that myself. Well, it all makes sense now. Thanks, MechaGodzilla, for clearing it up! 
"Our truest life is when we are in dreams awake." - Henry David Thoreau
(This post was edited by BlackFox on Apr 12 2014, 2:54pm)
|
|
|
Chancewind
Bree
Apr 12 2014, 2:56pm
Post #10 of 24
(1248 views)
Shortcut
|
have four limbs. In fact, his forelimbs are clearly more developed and more powerful than his rear legs. the fact that his wings are a part of those forelimbs does not disqualify them as such, which I think is the point being made.
The wings of wyverns are not represented as true limbs. They are solely wings, much like those of a traditionally drawn four-limbed and winged dragon. The result of this is that wyverns are almost always represented as bipedal, an unmistakable distinguishing trait which itself separates the concept of a wyvern from the depiction of Smaug in the film.
I agree with the original poster however, inasmuch as the arguments as to why Smaug isn't a dragon have in some places descended into sillyness and pedantry. Taking a brief look at modern media, the Smaug dragon design follows fairly closely what has become the modern conception of 'dragon' (its over-large forelimbs make it less bat-like in structure than most, but in general it matches up pretty well.) It might not be the traditional take on western dragons, but it is in no way 'wrong'. It is just that as a collective, our perception and evaluation of this particular mythical beast have altered over the centuries, and that's OK.
-as a little illustrative bonus, put 'George and the Dragon' into a Google Images search. It's a pretty even split between dragon slaying and wyvern slaying. Food for thought?
the only reason people think smaug is a wyvern, is because in the film they gave him two limbs instead of four. if they had designed him like tolkien clearly points out, then there might not be this silly argument.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Apr 12 2014, 4:10pm
Post #11 of 24
(1218 views)
Shortcut
|
Secondly, I completely understand this point of view. And I sympathise. But Tolkien's illustrations contradict themselves. For example Tolkien drew two alternative designs for orthanc, which are both very different.
That's not necessarrily a true contradiction however, if you are referring to different draft versions of Orthanc, as that would be like saying Trotter the Hobbit 'contradicts' with Strider the West-man.
Tolkien also loved love pauline bayne's illustrations of his work, which are very different to his. Since Tolkien did not have a dogmatic vision of middle earth, I don't think we need too.
Generally JRRT liked the work of Pauline Baynes [and some stuff from Cor Blok too], but he also generally disliked the depiction of the Fellowship by Pauline Baynes for example, an illustration which inspired him to describe, on paper, how he imagined certain characters should look.
JD Rateliff has now made this matter [JRRT's reaction to this artwork] more public, given that P. Baynes has now passed on.
(This post was edited by Elthir on Apr 12 2014, 4:16pm)
|
|
|
DaughterofLaketown
Gondor
Apr 12 2014, 5:14pm
Post #12 of 24
(1187 views)
Shortcut
|
My sister who knows a lot about dragons:
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
-Very true. Wyverns have two legs and two wings, and Smaug has four legs and two wings. Distinct difference, and those who say that Smaug is a wyvern are sadly mistaken. But don't worry, wyverns are still a type of dragon: very easy mistake to make.  . I am not sure if anyone on here watches Merlin, but they don't make that mistake. The wyverns have two legs in the show, but also....one mistake they did make is that it is a cousin of a dragon. This is not altogether correct, for the wyvern is a distinct breed of *a* dragon. I suppose it could be considered as a cousin of the dragon, but I guess that is all up to speculation. 
|
|
|
DaughterofLaketown
Gondor
Apr 12 2014, 5:16pm
Post #13 of 24
(1175 views)
Shortcut
|
Considering she is much more knowledgable in this area than I.
|
|
|
DanielLB
Immortal
Apr 12 2014, 5:40pm
Post #14 of 24
(1171 views)
Shortcut
|
|
All wyverns are dragons, but not all dragons are wyverns.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But Smaug is described as a dragon in the film. It doesn't really matter what he is anatomically - none of it really matters in the movies.
|
|
|
tsmith675
Gondor
Apr 13 2014, 2:07am
Post #15 of 24
(1099 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thank you very much for this thread.//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Our destiny lies above us.
|
|
|
Rembrethil
Tol Eressea
Apr 13 2014, 3:07am
Post #16 of 24
(1097 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Wow! This discussion could really drag-on....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
(Shameless pun)
Call me Rem, and remember, not all who ramble are lost...Uh...where was I?
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Apr 13 2014, 9:56am
Post #17 of 24
(1069 views)
Shortcut
|
Firstly the point I was making is that you could not call him a wyvern.
Secondly, I completely understand this point of view. And I sympathise. But Tolkien's illustrations contradict themselves. For example Tolkien drew two alternative designs for orthanc, which are both very different. Tolkien also loved love pauline bayne's illustrations of his work, which are very different to his.
Since Tolkien did not have a dogmatic vision of middle earth, I don't think we need too.
Whilst Tolkien's work is obviously highly descriptive I think its also notable that he doesn't nail down the exact look of everything, by describing via emotion he lets the reader fill in many visual details to fit that emotion.
Personally my feeling is that the most important thing with Smaug in the films was to get that mix of wild animalism and cunning intelligence. Giving a dragon arms and separate wings for me generally tends to humanise it more than arms/wing combined and would IMHO have pushed Smaug a bit too strongly in that direction. Better for me to go as "wild" as possible and have the intelligence come across more subtlety.
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Apr 13 2014, 12:33pm
Post #18 of 24
(1063 views)
Shortcut
|
|
To be honest, I tend to think of it like this -
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Dragon with four 'regular' legs and two wings = 'Regular' dragon.
Dragon with two 'main' legs and two wings (regardless of any claws on them) = Wyvern.
Then you have legless dragons, wingless dragons, six-legged dragons, two-, three-, four-, or five-headed dragons, and countless other variations.
The problem I tend to have is that for decades Tolkien's Smaug was commonly depicted as a red winged dragon with four 'regular' legs (a mental image I've had in my mind since I was around ten), and now they've made him into what I personally tend to think of as a wyvern. That takes a bit of getting used to.
___________________________________________________
From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Apr 13 2014, 12:40pm
Post #19 of 24
(1051 views)
Shortcut
|
|
"that mix of wild animalism and cunning intelligence"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Very well put. I agree that is the essence of Smaug and the most important thing to get across. IMO it worked.
Admittedly, I care nothing about dragons versus wyverns. I really like the way that Smaug looks and moves so it doesn't matter to me if he's different from one of Tolkien's drawings.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Apr 13 2014, 3:21pm
Post #20 of 24
(1044 views)
Shortcut
|
It's hard to divorce yourself from a mental image you've had for many years. I actually can't find a depiction of Smaug by any artist in which he doesn't clearly have 4 limbs, let alone just Tolkien. Even Jackson's team depicted him this way before changing him! Why they did that is anyone's guess.
|
|
|
Elthir
Grey Havens
Apr 14 2014, 11:50am
Post #21 of 24
(996 views)
Shortcut
|
Whilst Tolkien's work is obviously highly descriptive I think its also notable that he doesn't nail down the exact look of everything, by describing via emotion he lets the reader fill in many visual details to fit that emotion.
Ture enough in general, but early in the text Tolkien describes Smaug, choosing the word 'all' his limbs [suggesting more than two legs in my opinion], and in any case he later describes the 'foreleg' of Smaug during the attack on Laketown.
And the post you are agreeing with was in response to the fact that Tolkien made an actual illustration of Smaug, and the part of the response that began with 'but' was an attempt to note that A) Tolkien's illustrations 'contradict' themselves [but do they really, or do they really contradict themselves concerning Smaug, especially given any final renderings possibly meant for publication]...
... and B) Tolkien liked artwork other than his own -- suggesting [in my opinion] that we should be following his example and be open to whatever illustrators other than himself might depict. To which I'll add Christopher Tolkien's comment about a depiction of Legolas: "Long afterwards my father would write, in a wrathful comment on a ’pretty’ or ’ladylike’ pictorial rendering of Legolas: 'He was tall as a young tree,...'
So yes, generally speaking Tolkien liked the art of Pauline Baynes, which does not mean however, that we can employ Tolkien as a model of acceptance for anything other artists might come up with. JRRT also gave a lecture on dragons in general, part of which reads:
'A serpent creature, but with four legs and claws; his neck varied in length but had a hideous head with long jaws and teeth or snake tongue. He was usually heavily armoured especially on his head and back and flanks. Nonetheless he was pretty bendable (up and down or sideways), could even tie himself in knots on occasion, and had a long powerful tail. . . . Some had wings - the legendary kind of wings that go together with front legs (instead of being front legs gone queer). ... A respectable dragon should be 20 ft or more.'
JRRT, 1938
|
|
|
pettytyrant101
Lorien
Apr 14 2014, 6:01pm
Post #23 of 24
(978 views)
Shortcut
|
Tolkien didn't say dragons should have the head of a t-rex, be the size of a jumbo jet and have its wings attached to its front legs? (and live under a mound of gold so large if he does get killed it will destroy ME's economy over night and inflate the price of a cabbage to about a million gold pieces)
But then why I should expect them to follow Tolkien when they cant do it for characters, plot, or settings I dont know. Hell they cant even get Smaug's colour right even when he goes by the name Smaug the Golden.
"A lot of our heroes depress me. But when they made this particular hero they didn't give him a gun, they gave him a screwdriver so he could fix things. They didn't give him a tank, or a warship, or an x-wing fighter, they gave him a call box from which you can call for help. And they didn't give him a superpower, or pointy ears or a heat ray, they gave him an extra heart. And that's an extraordinary thing.
There will never come a time when we don't need a hero like the Doctor."- Steven Moffat
(This post was edited by pettytyrant101 on Apr 14 2014, 6:02pm)
|
|
|
Werde Spinner
Rohan
Apr 15 2014, 12:06am
Post #24 of 24
(972 views)
Shortcut
|
|
After a long time spent researching mythological creatures on Wikipedia
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
(or Wickedpedia, as one of my literature teachers called it), I have come to the conclusion that there are so many different versions and interpretations of mythological creatures, heraldic or otherwise, that almost anything goes. Yes, if you go just by the number of limbs Smaug is a wyvern. However, most wyvern depictions I've seen have depicted them as bipedal winged kangaroos than anything else. Smaug, to me, is a perfect blend of traditional dragon and wyvern - and, honestly, the most realistic and biologically plausible design I've ever seen.
I was kind of upset when I first learned of the change to four-limbed Smuag because (1) I loved the six-limbed design at that time and (2) it contradicted Tolkien. However, even then the scientific side of my brain was arguing how no living vertebrate has six limbs and how hard it would be, even for the geniuses of WETA, to make it work anatomically. So I resigned myself to the four-limbed design. Then when I actually saw Smaug I was blown away by it. It looked like the body shape of an azhdarchid or ornithocheiroid pterosaur, and I loved that.
Sorry if this is pointless rambling, I just wanted to throw my two cents in.
"I had forgotten that. It is hard to be sure of anything among so many marvels. The world is all grown strange. Elf and Dwarf in company walk in our daily fields; and folk speak with the Lady of the Wood and yet live; and the Sword comes back to war that was broken in the long ages ere the fathers of our fathers rode into the Mark! How shall a man judge what to do in such times?"
"As he ever has judged. Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house."
|
|
|
|
|
