Do you think they did a good job with the GoT Dragons?

Do you think they did a good job with the GoT Dragons?

no

Yes

>2010+7
>calling wyverns dragons

I seriously hope you don't do this

maybe

they're fine. not too big and they look pretty good.
>being a dragon autist
lol fuck off furry

the only meaningful dragon scene was when Jaime saw it burn his men, everything else was a waste of CGI money

Not a dragon but it looked ok i guess

With what money they have? Sure. Also they’re wyverns, not dragons.

This desu

Neil Degrassi: The Next Generation Tyson thinks so

>Ackchyually they're wyverns

>hurr durr it’s not a dragon, hurrrr

>in English, Scottish, and Irish heraldry, the key distinction has been that a wyvern has two legs, whereas a dragon has four; however, this distinction is not generally observed in the heraldry of other European countries, where two-legged dragons are entirely acceptable.

Eat a dick Brits

I think they did as well as could be expected.
Even shit movie dragons like Saphira in Eragon or the older movie dragons when effects weren't as advanced look better.

The fairest comparison for time though is the hobbit trilogy Smaug, and say what you will about those movies but Smaug looked amazing whereas the GoT dragons are underwhelming.

Nothing is more cringe than trying to force people call generic dragon with some fantasy subgenre name... Jesus fucking christ. And don't tell me its a historical name, because even as it is, it still tells everybody you are a fucking autisic cunt


>ACHSULLEH THEY ARE NOT ZOMBIES, THEY ARE ONLY INFECTED. A ZOMBIE MEANS THE BODY IS DEAD, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN 28 DAYS LATER

Nah, I think they are pretty ugly and badly designed, don't even care about the wyvern/dragon shit.

Yeah easily the best part of the show now. The part where they took flight from Dragonstone to save Jon was pretty good.

Yes. Great cgi. What time to be alive to see that.

ps2 tier cgi

I think it was more the fact that Smaug chewed scenery on level not seen in a fantasy film since James Earl Jones in Conan The Barbarian had to do with his amazing-ness. That and the fact that he scaled out to be something like 600' long.

But just as the LOTR wizards make all other fantasy wizards look like high school magicians, it's only fair that a proper Tolkienian dragon make all other movie dragons look like chickens in comparison.

>
I think it was more the fact that Smaug chewed scenery on level not seen in a fantasy film since James Earl Jones in Conan The Barbarian

This. Bernaduct Clumbersnatch as Smaug was the pulpiest bad guy we've ever seen this side of Ian McDiarmid as Sheev.

That's not a dragon it's Emilia clarke's eyebrows

And that's not even Tolkien's coolest dragon.

...

Those things are more related to bats than dragons

>le dragons hehe
fantasy niggers were a mistake.

Why is modern media so against having these kind of dragons? It's all le nu-dragons/glorified bats (wyverns) everywhere.

Yes. Especially when they were young, like when she jewed the guy selling the unsullied.

Is there anyone more autistic than the wyvernfags?

I don't know

What dragons GoT only has Wyverns.

Because they want dragons to be little more than animals rather than majestic beings with comparable intelligence to humans. That dragon is fucking ripped doe.

got is a masterpiece, and we should be thankful that got is happening during our lifetime

WYVERNS ARE DRAGONS, YOU FUCKING FAGGOT!!!!! I WILL FUCKING RIP YOUR FUCKING HEAD OFF, THEN I WILL FUCKING SHIT DOWN YOUR NECK!!!!!

Wyverns work better when the "dragons" are stupid beasts while legit dragons work better when they are smart and human-like creatures.

They are not dragons. That's like calling all lobsters crabs.

After you graduate from the local community college with your associates in creative writing, you quit your job as the assistant manager at Hot Topic and get a job writing for the shows on the CW. After you've done that for a bit, you can apply and have a 100% chance of getting hired on The Walking Dead. After you do that for a bit, you get hired to write on Game of Thrones. After that, Hollywood is your oyster.

it's easier to cg 4 limbs than 6

>>ACHSULLEH THEY ARE NOT ZOMBIES, THEY ARE ONLY INFECTED. A ZOMBIE MEANS THE BODY IS DEAD, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN 28 DAYS LATER
This is actually a legitimate point though, unless a rabid animal is suddenly considered a zombie.

Says who? The autistic rules for what constitutes a dragon and what doesn't set up by some random tabletop game?
I can write a story where there are winged horses and call them "dragons" and there would be nothing wrong with it because I'm the one setting the rules for the fictional races of my fictional world, not you, autist.

actually those terms originated in medieval heraldry and folk lore way before whatever game you're raging about.
However is correct, a wyvern is a specific type of dragon.And all the dragons in GoT would be wyverns, because they have two legs and wings for arms, like a bat.

No because they fucked it up from the start. They're wyverns instead of dragons.

Why is it so hard to put arms on a dragon.

Is it a money thing?

>my autistic rules are better than yours

See Not even the people who studied that shit had a clear consensus on that topic and only the brits respected that.
Even then, I see no reason to treat that as a rule. Like I said, I'm the one in charge of my fantasy world and its fantasy creatures so if I call a winged horse a "dragon" then that thing will be a dragon as far as my setting cares and everyone else can fuck off.

They are because I don't go around trying to force them on other fictional works.
If my setting says winged horses are dragons and other guy's setting says only four-limbed reptiles with wings are dragons I'm not going to go full autism over it because I'm not stupid enough to think every setting should follow the same rules.

you have the liberty to create your own creatures and name them but you can't rename already existing creatures. basically, call a spade a fuckin spade.

Dragons aren't an existing creature, they are a fantasy creature and every fucking culture has a different concept of it.
Why don't you go tell the asians their dragons aren't actually dragons because they don't have wings?

WYVERNS ARE DRAGONS!!!!!

4-limbed dragons like in Reign of Fire, GoT, and the Hobbit films have a special aesthetic appeal, look a bit more aerodynamic than your pic's design, are both more snakelike and birdlike, and can look a bit more regal.

REPEATING NUMBERS CONFIRM!!!!! DISAGREEING FAGGOTS BTFO!!!!!

Wyverns exist independent from dragons in GoT

they exist in literature and your post basically proves that you accept the fact that there is an actual concept that you can use as a guideline

Regardless, the dragons in GoT could not be wyverns, because not only are wyverns a separate species like says, but wyverns do not breathe fire whereas GoT dragons do.

>they exist in literature
And? Just like with IRL cultures, literature has a bajillion different definitions of what makes a dragon.
You have dragons who breath fire through an organ, dragons who breath fire through magic, dragons who don't breath fire, dragons who hoard gold, dragons who don't hoard gold, dragons who reproduce like rabbits, dragons with low birth rates, dragons with wings, dragon with no wings, sea dragons, etc.
>your post basically proves that you accept the fact that there is an actual concept that you can use as a guideline
Yes, with "guideline" being the key. Most fictional dragons do share some traits and everyone has a basic concept of them but that doesn't mean you are forced to respect those common traits no matter what.
The whole point of fictional literature is to allow writers to go wild with their imagination and create interesting concepts. Restricting people's imagination with retarded rules would be the death of fiction.

we basically describe different kinds of fantasy. you're more of a soft fantasy guy. the argument here is that GoT is supposed to be hard fantasy, so miscategorizing a creature is a notable flaw.

what does heraldry have to do with furries u imbecile?

They're pretty good, but I can't be the only one who's sick to death of wyvern-style dragons.

GoT being hard fantasy doesn't change shit.
I never said that just because you are writing a ficitonal story you can write completely senseless shit like magical flying rabbits with no explanation.
Yes, GoT is hard fantasy but that doesn't change my point. Even with hard fantasy there is no set of rules that force you to only do X thing in a certain way. As long as your fictional shit has internal consistency you can still go wild with your imagination.
So explain to me why a hard fantasy story couldn't have four-limbed dragons, because as far as I know they are perfectly logical just like all the other types of dragons I described before.
Again, there are no absolute rules on what makes a dragon and trying to force your own concept of what makes a dragon into someone else's setting is pretty fucking stupid.

The dragons weren't bad in the first six seasons, but they became bigger and bigger conflict killers, although I never really cared about the conflicts to begin with (Fuck Essos). I like dragons, but people were obsessing over them even though they were one of the least interesting parts of the show.

Then Daenerys went to Westeros with her dragons, who are now bigger and stronger than ever. Now I actually care about the scenes where they reek devastation. Seeing Drogon destroy the Lannisters from Jaime's point of view was horrifying. Jaime looked helpless and hopeless, and now he acts like he has PTSD. He is genuinely terrified by Dany's dragons.

I guess the biggest problem with them, apart from being a part of a meh plotline, was that Rhaegal and Viserion are outshined by Drogon. Hopefully, Rhaegal gets more screentime in season 8 (if Jon is going to ride Rhaegal, there should be some kind of connection between them).

I was actually bothered by how they hyped up the dragons as the WMDs of the GoT universe only for one of them to nearly get fucked up by the Lannister's new asspulled weapon and another one to get insta-killed by the Night King.

>you can still go wild with your imagination
I didn't say you can't but shit needs to be explained. you still seem to not understand the concept of hard fantasy. D&D didn't invent dragons, if they want 4-limbed dragons in their show they have to explain why said dragons lost 2 limbs. just include a scene where a maester gives a somewhat convincing explanation. something like "dragons born in winter have 4 limbs" or whatever. that's hard fantasy.

I prefer 4 legged dragons but wyverns just make more sense, they look more realistic

...

The ballista isn't an asspull at all, and as you stated, Drogon "nearly" got fucked up. Bronn was probably one of the most capable people alive when it comes to operating the ballista, and he still failed to kill Drogon. The ballista was a trick, at best, and it didn't work.

The Night King is a fucking god, so Viserion getting one-shot by the most dangerous being on the planet, makes sense.

Too much stupid shit made me repress the Hobbit movies. Does he make the speech about his teeth being spears, his scales hardened steel and his claws like swords?

Of course it was an asspull, there was no foreshadowing about the Lannisters looking for stronger weapons or Qyburn giving two fucks about anything not related with his weird experiments till they suddenly go "OH, LOOK, WE HAVE THIS DRAGON-KILLING WEAPON NOW".
Also the Night King showed magic powers before but never showed the ability to throw homing ice spears, not to mention that he had them ready as if he was expecting the dragons to show up and knew he could kill one with that.

Why would they need to explain that? They could just say the dragons in the setting are just like that.
You are assuming a dragon should always have six limbs or that there is some rule that every ficitonal dragon should be like that or otherwise you are forced to explain why they aren't like that when no such thing exist.

From a scientific perspective

Definitely

Only on a very shallow, superficial level. There are only two ways in which four-limbed dragons "make more sense", and both are bullshit that have no place in a fantasy setting with dragons in the first place.

Meanwhile, we still get centaurs, minotaurs, pegasus, and many other mythical beasts and creatures without any recourse to scientific accuracy.

It logically follows that, now that Dany is in Westeros, Qyburn would research how to kill them. And the ballista isn't some super powerful dragon killing machine, regardless of how much you like to describe it as one. Jaime states in the fucking show that the thing didn't stop Drogon.

You saying that you didn't SEE one of The Night King's abilities, therefore he shouldn't have it, doesn't make any sense. You also saying that having ice spears, in addition to other ice weapons, is a deus ex machina, doesn't make sense. The White Walkers have access to multiple weapons. That's all the explanation you need. The Night King didn't show his talents because he didn't have to before. That's all the explanation you need. The spears weren't "homing," because The Night King missed Drogon. The Night King has superhuman strength and precision. I can accept that because he is also 8000-years-old and can raise thousands of creatures from the dead at once.

One weapon didn't kill a dragon and the other was used by a god to kill one.

well why dont you go and start speaking french then you fucking nigger

>Why would they need to explain that?
It would be nice, it would add to the lore.
You're all for boundless imagination but your arguments all come down to "just deal with it, it's fantasy". How unimaginative is that?

Anyway, dragons in tv and movie have 4 limbs because it's easier to cg. It's not aesthetic preference, it's practicality.

My arguments are "there is no definitive definition on what are the traits of a dragon so expecting people to go out of the way to comply to YOUR definition is retarded".
Again, it's like asking the asians to explain why their dragons don't have wings. They are like that becuase that's Gurrm's version of a dragon.

>It would be nice, it would add to the lore.

It doesn't fucking matter. Why would anybody give a flying fuck how many legs a dragon has? Why would anybody give a fuck about the differences between wyverns and dragons? D&D shouldn't have to throw in lines to satisfy a small group of people's autism.

Can you repeat the question?

of course it fuckin matters. everything fuckin matters in hard fantasy. it's as annoying as people teleporting all over westeros.
and I want 6-limbed dragons on tv and movies again FUCK

How fucking autistic can you be? Stop using hard fantasy to justify your mental issues.
GoT being hard fantasy doesn't mean that dragons MUST have six limbs. There is no logic-breaking problem here because dragons aren't fucking real and there is no absolute definition of what is a dragon and what isn't.
So no, four-limbed dragons isn't the same as the latest seasons shit writing, you just think so because it hurts your autism.

4 limbed dragons work better as dumb beasts, or animals with dog like intellect. The posture forces them to move more awkwardly, and their head movement when regarding someone generally makes it look like they're genuflecting. This reinforces the idea that they're animals to their masters heel, rather than a equal or lieutenant.

To contrast, 6 limbed dragons work better when the creature is depicted as human level intelligence or above. Their walk looks more noble and controlled for a benevolent one, or a stalking movement for an evil one. Likewise, their flight allows them to keep their poise in the air, as opposed to putting their entire being into the effort. Also, their head/neck movement has more versatility. Depending on the rest of their body, they can appear condescending, dominating, respectful, submissive and more, since their body composition doesn't mean the rest of their body is forced in certain ways when making the required movements.

Some people like to use the realism argument, since no vertebrates have more than 4 limbs and wings, but I always think that's fucking retarded, since any dragon bigger than a condor would need the bone density and bodyweight of an anemic toddler in order to fly. That's not even mentioning fire breathing.

>of course it fuckin matters.

No, it does not matter. You have a bizarre obsession over what constitutes a dragon, when barely anybody else gives a shit. This debate over the characteristics of dragons is as boring and worthless as debates over the characteristics of zombies.

>and I want 6-limbed dragons on tv and movies again FUCK

There you go, that's all you had to say. You want dragons with four legs because you like dragons with four legs. That's it. But everybody else doesn't have to conform to your expectations and preferences. This argument over "hard" fantasy is an excuse for you to force what you like onto others.

>tfw if tyrion wasn't holding dany back we would see much more of the dragons burning everyone

They seriously ruined Tyrion's character this season. The only things he does is complain about shit.
>don't use your dragons, Dany
>don't kill people who refuse to bow to you, Dany
>don't become Queen and make Westeros into a democracy even though the peasants are too uneducated for that, Dany
>don't fuck your nephew, Dany

Tyrion hasn't been cool since Season 4, and I think that is partially GRRM's fault. I honestly believe, at this point, that Tyrion should have died after he killed Tywin. He's just not in his element at all outside of King's Landing.

He was cool in the books when he is dealing with personal issues after Tywin's death and becomes a bit more of an asshole, even manipulating Aegon into attacking Westeros ahead of time.
In the show he hasn't done shit aside from show up whenever there is a meeting and trying to be Dany's moral chain.

Yeah he does and it's great voice work but they split the speech up over 3 scenes so it loses a lot of its impact.

I don't get Tyrion's newfound pacifism. I know that he isn't prone to violence, unless pushed to it through rage or self-defense, but now he looks disgusted every time he sees bloodshed. The dude smashed another man's head in with a shield, but looks horrified when Gendry kills a city guard.

Tyrion is a pussy now and as Hand, has been, at best, worthless to Daenerys, and at worst, catastrophic to her plans. The only good advice he has given her was to drop Daario and work towards an alliance with Jon. He is not a war strategist and his personal connection in the conflict with his family has compromised his critical thinking skills.

Smaug was originally supposed to have six limbs, you can see his forelegs in the beginning of the theatrical version of An Unexpected Journey. But he was too hard to an animate in an intimidating way, he ended up looking like a dog, so they changed it.

They basically needed someone to disagree with Dany so there could be more drama so they turned him into a pro-democracy pacifist who lost all his cynism and cunning and suddenly thinks that you can win a war without murdering a few guys.

What I don't get, is why low flames are blue, but the hottest stars are also blue...

>he ended up looking like a dog, so they changed it.
and the alternative is dragons looking like freaking iguanas.

It's to make Dany look badass

>It's to make Dany look badass

Daenerys already looked badass (to some people, at least) due to her mowing through all opposition for several seasons. Tyrion's reservations were not about Dany; they were about him.

This dragon looks like Chloe

>and the alternative is dragons looking like freaking iguanas.
I don't see why an iguana is a terrible inspiration for a fucking dragon, they're both reptilian, moreso than dogs.

I like the dragons in GoT a lot, we've had a few years now to get used to them even being a thing, but every so often when I'm watching the show I still find myself thinking "Jesus fuck this is a TV show and not a movie". (conversely the writing has unfortunately dropped from "golden age of TV"-standard back down to movie-standard)

I do have some qualms though, they're not perfect. I think the "quills" on their necks move around a little too much, and there are issues with the way CGI skin works where especially in close ups of the faces you can see scales stretching and deforming in a simple CGI way when things would be a little more complicated in reality, and I also think the faces can be a little too animated when they focus on them, like when Drogon returned to Danerys at night after having run away for a few episodes, his face comes right up into the camera and so it's like they felt they needed to make use of every single aspect of his face that can be animated and it ended up being too much.

The past couple seasons I felt Dany interacting and riding on the dragons was done pretty well, definitely better than the first time they did it at the end of season 5 which looked awful, they've seemed to learn from that mistake. I can't help but be annoyed when I would see people react to any instance of it since as though it was as badly executed as the first time. You're really going to be willfully blind so you get to call something shit?

Here's a reminder of how bad it was.

Drogon doesn't look bad. The background doesn't look realistic, though.

The fact that he has reservations makes him a beta, and Dany a stronk female

>There are only two ways in which four-limbed dragons "make more sense"
Which is the second, other than the obvious one (following the trend of 4 limbs for vertebrates)? Also, centaurs are supposed to be a conjoining of man and horse, more than 4 limbs makes sense

He has reservations partially for personal reasons. Cersei is a "stronk female" and many people hate her because she is a cunt. Sure, she has fans (I respect the audacity of her murdering all of her enemies in the Great Sept, but it has nothing do with her being female), but she is a fucking cunt.