Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is it my imagination but doesn't the new GW LotR dragon except for color look exactly like the one from the movie with Sean Connery voice over.

RB

This post could certainly use some links or pictures.

or users with avatars

SORRY no avatar. And just saw the picture in latest WD#328. I don't have the ability to scan images.

RB

I think that's the dragon in question.  The body is long and I can't remember what the wings look like.

Draco from Dragonheart.  I don't see the resemblance myself ...

- Boss Salvage

It looks a lot more like some of the artwork done for the LoTR books.

"...I don't see the resemblance myself ..."

Well, dragons do tend to look pretty dragon-ish, after all. Though the one from Dragonheart looks more like a Disney dinosaur, due to all the CG facial-expression effects they loaded on it.

I think the LotR dragon looks a lot like one of Alan Lee's drawings of Smaug; Tolkien's drawing is not as thick-bodied. Personally I cordially dislike the GW LotR dragon, it looks thick and dumpy, sort of like a gila monster.

Yeah, that is probably what I saw. It was in one of the LoTR art books I saw a few years ago. Not Tolkien's drawings.

The Dragonheart one looks very squished.

Ah, just get the supermegahuge Red Dragon from the D&D minis line. Those turned out nice . ..

It's Trish. I will say no more.

Posted By fellblade on 04/19/2007 12:34 PM
....it looks thick and dumpy, sort of like a gila monster.

LOL  When I saw it, it reminded me of something, but I could not put my finger on it.  Then I read the "Gila Monster" thing and .....  *ding*

Is there a pic that shows more than just the head?

I'd prefer not to condemn it based on just that. (Head swaps with the old metal Wood Elf Forest Dragon for instance might be feasible if the body is good.)

Posted By Asmodai on 04/19/2007 9:53 PM
Is there a pic that shows more than just the head?

I'm personally happy with the "dumpiness".  Given that in the rules, wings are only an "option", a dumpy ground-based Dragon (as per, say "Glaurung" would be just fine.

My problems are:

1/ that with the wings attached there isn't sufficient musculature to make them convincing as something it could fly with, and

2/ The "crazy-paving" skin texture just feels wrong.  The nearest I can find in real life is a Tortoise's legs!  Personally I would have liked something more crododilic!

Anyhow, with a price tag of £30 to match, there are plenty of alternatives to choose from that will fit any particular idea of a Dragon you may have that will suit you.

Personally I like Mithri's "Vengeance of Smaug"



Which at 33 Euros is around 2/3 the price. 

The belly also seems wrong to me.  It looks like it has a bit larger gut area than a carnivore would need, sorta like a dragon-cow.  Thank god it doesn't have teats!  But look at how a dog is built; bigger chest, smaller stomach. 

And I agree, the wing attachments don't look durable enough.  I know, I know, "Magic!".

Also, the disparity in neck/tail thickness bugs me.  I've seen too many shows about dinosaurs, I think.

The wings don't need to be muscular! The dragon flies by magic. Then again, a dragon with magic shouldn't need wings, but I guess they like 'em.



Wasn't the belly the spot where one of Smaug's scales fell off and the archer hit him? It's been a few years since reading Hobbit, but if the scales are that huge it's no wonder an archer would be able to hit the fleshy underside.  Oh yeah, and Smaug was old and fat and liked to sleep on treasure. I dare ya to claim you can keep a taut stomach with that.

When I first saw the full pic of this Smaug I thought he looked like a big fat cat, with his fat belly, big paws and general head shape. Cool that you can run him wingless, and I think the model would at least be interesting without the wings, which as noted are kinda tacked on anyway. But I think stonefox is onto something, and maybe this is the most accurate representation of old Smaugy to date!

- Boss Salvage

Looks much better than all other GW dragons.

I think Tolkein believed in the soft-bellied sort of dragons. Smaug had lain on his hoard for so many years that gold and gems got stuck in the slime of his tender belly, providing a very expensive and splendid armored waistcoat. Except for the hollow by his left breast, which was as bare as a snail out of its; shell.

By and large I've been very impressed with the LoTR range, sculpts for which have usually stood tall over anything else done for 40k or WHFB during the same time. But that dragon is awful. Is it even supposed to represent Smaug? What? As stated, it looks like a fat cow with scales and clawed clown shoes (and tacked on wings!). What the hell. Don't get me wrong, I like some of the soft-bellied sort of dragons (like Arthur Rankin's Smaug), but this just seems rather amateurish. Even GW's generally yawn-inspiring dragons are better. Plus, they want £30 for it to boot?

No. This is not Smaug. From US White Dwarf #328:


And as for the design:


Personally I think the Dragon looks quite appropriate in a low-fantasy setting (not that Tolkien's works would be considered 'low-fantasy')...

Ah, very good then. It also explains why I dislike the dragon: Trish strikes again! Thanks for the info Ghaz.