Wardancer Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Dragon Size Comparison It is safe to say that Smaug is the biggest dragon around. But is he bigger only by a bit or by far? What makes him so giantic? And, above all: Why is comparing body parts so much fun? I shall let the pictures speak for themselves and will only add a humble verdict. heads by MWardancer, on Flickr legs by MWardancer, on Flickr torsos by MWardancer, on Flickr wings by MWardancer, on Flickr necks by MWardancer, on Flickr Standing by MWardancer, on Flickr I was rather astonished that a huge part of the difference in size is a result of the different torsos. I did not expect Smaug's torso to be that much longer. The same is true for the neck. One aspect the pictures do not convey is the overall size, because that was done by others already. Smaug is insanely huge. A minifig on the Hungarian Horntail looks somehow proportionate. The green one gives the impression that it can be ridden by an outstanding rider it regards as its master. It is somewhat possible to built a very long lance for a fig on these two. If you put a fig on Smaug, it appears to be lost, a small speck on the back of a dark red beast. I tried to give various weapons to the rider, but they all look like a sad joke in comparison to all the claws and horns. Maybe a fine lady or a wise mage is the best option. Edited March 6, 2015 by Wardancer Quote
Deathleech Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Interesting. This makes me wonder if some existing dragon parts could have been used for Smaug, along with some new parts, to save on mold cost? For instance the green dragon leg mold could have probably been re-used and that would have allowed Lego to make a new mold for say orc armor, or elf armor? Quote
Wardancer Posted March 6, 2015 Author Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) The pictures above do not show the considerable difference between the legs's width. Here it is: Smaug's leg is about 5mm wider, also the feet. Take that times two and it makes an IMHO big difference for the overall impression. The old leg mould would have made a much slimmer looking dragon as the second picture suggests. legs front by MWardancer, on Flickr mix by MWardancer, on Flickr Also interesting is that the classic leg is higher than Smaug's. Edit: I have just tried exchanging the neckpiece. Smaug with the green neck looks good from above in terms of size, but the angle of the neck doesn't fit the shape of the torso. Viewed from the side, it looks very odd. So TLG could not have tried that either. Edited March 6, 2015 by Wardancer Quote
Deathleech Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Hmm, Smaug's legs are definitely bulkier. I wonder if Lego did this to help support the bigger neck and torso? If not, I see no problem with the green dragon legs (if they were recolored of course). Being a little thinner and longer actually seems like it would be more true to the movie version? There just aren't enough nails. Quote
nine09nueve Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 I guess it makes sense... Smaug wasn't designed (or should that be written) to be ridden... Eddie Primus (yup that's the name my 5 year old had given the green amoured dragon) definitely is one to be ridden Great comparison Dancer! Much love D Quote
Captain Pirate Man Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Do you have more pics of them all standing together? Quote
Wardancer Posted March 6, 2015 Author Posted March 6, 2015 If we include the T-Rex, there is even a third mold for the legs of lizardlike giant creatures. If money grew on trees I'd hire an airbrush sprayer to turn Smaug into a dark green forest dragon. I don't know if I would dare to spray him myself. I tried making tan horses by spraying once and messes them up. Do you have more pics of them all standing together? I can make a few tomorrow. Quote
Venunder Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 If only the Smaug model was a Dragon..... With only two legs he is just a Wyvern. I will be attempting to add his front legs using constraction parts and some dark red plates etc. Quote
fred67 Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) How does it compare to the Mythical Creatures (4894) Dragon? I have the smaller fantasy era dragons and this one... Smaug and this one are obviously bigger, but I don't have a Smaug to compare. Edited March 6, 2015 by fred67 Quote
Captain Pirate Man Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) If only the Smaug model was a Dragon..... With only two legs he is just a Wyvern. I will be attempting to add his front legs using constraction parts and some dark red plates etc. Smaug was not a wyvern, but I understand what you are saying. Wyvern's are more snake like than what smaug was depicted in the films. Also most dragons that appear in movies are only two legged, it's because it makes them appear more sinister. So Jackson knew what he was doing by only giving Smaug two legs. Especially since Tolken drew Smaug with 4 legs, so clearly Jackson made that change. But again it's because of appearance. So as far as I'm concerned Smaug is indeed a Dragon, not a wyvern, even though he is 2 legged. Calling him a wyvern is changing his species, which is a greater injustice imo, than just accepting him as a 2 legged Dragon... Here is a size comparison between Smaug and the Dragon from Dragon mountain. http://i1373.photobucket.com/albums/ag385/CaptainPirateMan/Mobile%20Uploads/0306152037_zpsth1xqzu6.jpg Edited March 7, 2015 by Captain Pirate Man Quote
Logwyn Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Smaug was not a wyvern, but I understand what you are saying. Wyvern's are more snake like than what smaug was depicted in the films. Also most dragons that appear in movies are only two legged, it's because it makes them appear more sinister. So Jackson knew what he was doing by only giving Smaug two legs. Especially since Tolken drew Smaug with 4 legs, so clearly Jackson made that change. But again it's because of appearance. So as far as I'm concerned Smaug is indeed a Dragon, not a wyvern, even though he is 2 legged. Calling him a wyvern is changing his species, which is a greater injustice imo, than just accepting him as a 2 legged Dragon... Here is a size comparison between Smaug and the Dragon from Dragon mountain. http://i1373.photobu...zpsth1xqzu6.jpg Honestly for me two legged dragons look weird and goofy. More like a chicken or a bird running around. We'll have to agree to disagree but Jackson making him the way he did made him a Wyvern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyvern) rather than a dragon. I'm sorry Dragons with 4 legs look more powerful and strong than the "chicken" dragons that are really Wyvern. Although as for the lego model. Its awesome!!!! I wish I could afford 9 more of them!! LOL. Quote
Wardancer Posted March 7, 2015 Author Posted March 7, 2015 Would the thin arms on the classic dragon qualify as 'legs' and make him 4-legged and thereby a dragon? Quote
Wardancer Posted March 7, 2015 Author Posted March 7, 2015 "Have you been working out lately?" "Oh yes, thanks for noticing. Battle season is coming and people kept calling me a wyvern." 4-legged by MWardancer, on Flickr Quote
nine09nueve Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 "Have you been working out lately?" "Oh yes, thanks for noticing. Battle season is coming and people kept calling me a wyvern." Quote
AmperZand Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 If only the Smaug model was a Dragon..... With only two legs he is just a Wyvern. I will be attempting to add his front legs using constraction parts and some dark red plates etc. While it's true that wyverns only ever have two legs, dragons have variously been portrayed for centuries in Europe as either bipedal or quadrupedal. Like you, I prefer my dragons with four legs, but Smaug is no less a dragon for his missing forelimbs. Quote
Captain Pirate Man Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 (edited) Honestly for me two legged dragons look weird and goofy. More like a chicken or a bird running around. We'll have to agree to disagree but Jackson making him the way he did made him a Wyvern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyvern) rather than a dragon. I'm sorry Dragons with 4 legs look more powerful and strong than the "chicken" dragons that are really Wyvern. Although as for the lego model. Its awesome!!!! I wish I could afford 9 more of them!! LOL. I'm denying that by definition you are correct. But I read an article earlier today on this very topic, and it's no coincidence that every Dragon to appear in a film is 2 legged. Think about it, all the dragon's from Harry Potter, 2 legged. The Dragon from Dragon slayer, 2 legged. And now Smaug is 2 legged. The only Dragon that I'm unsure of is the one that Sean Connery voiced. My point being that clearly this is a discussion that has taken place in every film that contains a dragon. But something about the 2 legged version makes them appear bigger and more sinister. Here is the article I read, these 2 legged dragons clear to be prefered by film makers. https://atolkienistperspective.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/dragons-vs-wyverns-the-question-of-smaug/ Also let me add, that these are all mythical creatures that their mythology has evolved over time as well. It is only in Britian where the wyvern was given a true definition, due to them being included in crests. So my point is, that due to motion pictures, the definition is clearly evolving again. So is Smaug and others like him a dragon or a wyvern? I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. But he is called a dragon, as are the rest that appeared in films, so as far as I'm concerned they are dragons. Edited March 7, 2015 by Captain Pirate Man Quote
TheLegoDr Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 As far as I'm concerned they are dragons too. But I don't really care. It sounds like an SAT question. If all wyverns are dragons, but not all dragons are wyverns, then [what is the meaning of this question on a standardized test?] Either way, Smaug is tremendous, no wait, magnificent? I don't own him because of that stupid price tag, but I should just bite the bullet and pick him up, lest I miss out on him and be upset at myself. But the comparison is quite striking. How big is the standard Dragon vs the T-Rex? I do own a T-Rex and was impressed at his scale, but I don't own any regular style dragons. I don't even own the dragon master's dragon from the mid '90s (will someone play me a small violin?) Quote
Wardancer Posted March 7, 2015 Author Posted March 7, 2015 I recommend getting Smaug at the moment because I guess there will not be such a beast for a long time and prizes will only increase. Buy the set and trade off the dwarves. This would look so nice. If there were dark red arms, I would drill a hole. When wyverns dream of being a dragon by MWardancer, on Flickr Quote
Vorkosigan Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Good thread, thanks for the comparison. While I'm not a huge LOTR fan I had to pick up TLM for Smaug. I've been saving it because of the lack of new Castle related sets on the horizon, but maybe I better build it so I know whether I might really need to pick up some more! Quote
Rogue Angel Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 As Tolkien was the basis of dungeons and dragons and modern fantasy. Smaug is a Dragon, is The Dragon, so however he looks, he is a Dragon. Quote
Venunder Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 In the Hobbit. Smaug is a Dragon with 4 legs and 2 wings. Peter Jackson should have made Smaug as Dragon with 4 legs and 2 wings. TLG should have made Smaug as a Dragon with 4 legs and 2 wings. In my opinion No amount of argument can change that. TLG have made the best of a bad job, but I'll still be Modding my own Smaug. Quote
Wardancer Posted March 7, 2015 Author Posted March 7, 2015 As were dealing not with the scientific problem of biological classification of a real being, but with a cultural and etymological one (different concepts of Dragons spread over countries, languages and discourses), maybe we could agree that a two-legged Smaug is a dragon sensu lato (wider sense), a wyvern specifically, while the four- legged one is a dragon sensu stricto. So whoever calls Smaug a dragon is right, more or less. At first I thought the German translation for Wyvern would be Lindwurm, but they don't even have wings. Unless you count the Warhammer Riesenlindwurm, which does. I also wish I had a four-legged Smaug, but I wonder how I would deal with the claws on the wings then. Keeping them would make a beast with 6 claws which is exaggerated even for a lizard the size of a house. Omitting the claws will leave a questionable free space on the wings. One solution could be to make the claws dark red and thereby make them look more like part of the wings. Quote
lego tripper Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) How does it compare to the Mythical Creatures (4894) Dragon? Am I the only one who vastly prefers this brick-built dragon to all those in the original post? There's just something about those large <insert that tiresome argument> pieces that strikes me as odd. Other than the 4 studs, there isn't much Lego to them. Edit: really, "jooniorized" is censored? Edited March 8, 2015 by lego tripper Quote
Wardancer Posted March 8, 2015 Author Posted March 8, 2015 IMHO there is always a Break or a gap in style. If you put a modern detailled fig on a brickbuilt animal, the visual difference gaps between rider and mount, but the mount in turn fits well into a brickbuilt environment. If you put a detailled fig on a detailled mount, the style gap is pushed between mount and environment. I prefer the latter because I regard rider and mount as one unit. Often I display them even without environment. Also one could argue that most environments are more suitable for being brickbuilt than creatures which in cases require difficult angles, an organic shape, many details and poseability. Quote
AmperZand Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 I have the brick-built Nidhogg dragon from 2005 (from this set: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?S=7017-1 ). It's bigger than the Fantasy Era moulded dragon of which I have two, the red one and the dark red one. I don't have Smaug. Which is bigger: the Nidhogg dragon or Smaug? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.