My teeth are swords! My claws are spears! My wings are a hurricane! I laid low your warriors of old. I instill terror in the hearts of men. I am KING UNDER THE MOUNTAIN!
is this some song? don't visit /mu/ much
smaug a cute
Its a speech Smaug gives in the new Hobbit movie.
Man, say what you want, THAT is how you do dragons.
shame everything else about the movie was awful.
Only problem I had were the Orcs being CGI instead of costume. Then again, I'm not a filthy novel purist. LotR had the better movies though.
Go troll /tv/ with this shit.
Bilbo is much better protagonist than Frodo though. Plus the dwarf nakama gang is charming.
I'm not trolling. Why don't you explain your opinions instead of relying on ad hominem? Its not like this thread was /a/ to begin with.
Yeah, I like Bilbo much better. Its just that they're trying to make the Hobbit fit into the epic mold that the LotR was cast in. And they're succeeding only partway, and it shows.
Still the best action movie of the year. And this year had some good ones.
That's because Bilbo isn't a bitch. Frodo had no depth and was just a figure to carry the ring. Sam was was the true hero of LoTR.
Agreed but Martin Freeman's performance was obnoxious from the get go. All those weird quirks and poses in his speech, it's not very fitting.
If you are a king, why are you under the mountain?
Wouldn't that make you a sissy?
Frodo had a lot of depth to him. The fact that the audience couldn't see that in the movies was probably the biggest problem with the otherwise stellar adaptions.
>>100519778's like, if one big roach infested the Pentagon. Then everyone would agree, that's one superbad roach.
I just saw that movie last night, it was pretty neat. They did a great job with Smaug I think.
At least he has a roof on his head.
Top of the mountain ? Enjoy your Japanese cold and you 24hours trek to buy groceries.
>THAT is how you do dragons
But Smaug was a Wyvern
smaug was the only good part of the movie
No, He's a scaly bat.
I liked the river scene.
And what exactly was wrong with the rest?
Besides the love interest shit
>Mind listing a few examples? Cause after he left Rivendell, he seemingly stopped being interesting, and just became a device to carry the ring.
>Not building your kingdom under a mountain.
>Years of the Trees and First Age
Me too, everyone in the theater was giggling when that one fat dwarf destroyed all the orcs.
Would completely destroy her
>He was a wyvern
Never stick your dick in crazy anon.
No, she's like 14.
Still the best episode so far
She was in high school and also
>Not living in the glorious Peoples Republic where anything past 13 is fine and dandy
Its been a long time since I read the book series. So I'll be talking broad strokes here. But the depth of Frodo's character came from how he dealt with holding onto the ring. The constant pressure it had on him and how it decayed him as a person. The reason why Sam had to take over for Frodo was because the ring had damaged Frodo to the point that he couldn't go on his own. And after the end of the series we see that it permanently prevents him from being able to settle down because of the damage it did.
The two terms are literally interchangeable unless you try to put DnD fantasy rules onto a mythos that precedes it by a few decades.
No, it really wasn't. In fact, I forget about it unless people bring it up.
So 15? I don't know your fucking educational system. Also, still disgusting.
>Thinking I said no cause of legality and not because of having standards
God, no, DnD was NOT the first to make a distinction between wyvern dragons and 'proper' dragons by several friggin' centuries. Shut up with that bullshit already.
That still doesn't excuse that because hackson was a lazy fuck he completely changed his design despite how he was drawn by Tolkien and even shown in teh first movie. And half the movie was filler made up of unfunny shit.
I still like the barrel fighting though, that was pretty well done
Aren't we in the Fourth or Fifth Age at this point, or I am mixing my Tolkien Ages with my Jordan Ages?
This girl acts and looks like Tewi.
I miss ruse-chan. Mako is great for comedy, but her shtick is getting a used a bit too much, now.
I really think the movie could have been done as just two movies and it would have been fine.
I agree the barrel fight was good/fun.
>The first settlers of the Lonely Mountain took place in the first age, the kingdom came in the second age.
The comedy episodes are the best
No, they're only interchangeable to people who haven't been exposed to very much fantasy or mythological work at all.
There is a distinction, it is there for a reason. Lazy writers and artists lump them together, most don't even factor in drakes and wyrms at all, or wrongly consider them stages of evolutions of one another.
Eh, the episodes that have actual character development are better.
Tennis-chan is still my favorite one-off character though.
Okay, I really should finish reading the Silmarillion one of these years.
And what exactly is the distinction then?
Eh, the Silmarillion can be really dry unless you're super into LotR. I just read the wikia when I'm bored at work and people are walking by to frequently to read manga.
My favorite thing about the love interest stuff is that they wanted to create a "strong female character" yet ended up writing one with no personality other than HURR DWARF BOY IS HOT while utterly failing to past the Bechdel Test as a result.
She is the worst thing ever added to a LotR movie.
Other than that it was a pretty good film, yeah. Much, much better than the first. Elf King Sephiroth and Smaug were the best bits though.
Yeah, My statement still stands they're interchangeable in modern fantasy culture. The dragons in a song of Ice and Fire would be "wyverns" by your definitions, and GRRM would just be "Lazy" for trying to base them on semi-realistic biology and using the most commonly recognizable term.
Go be autistic somewhere else.
The main point here is that Wyvern don't have forelegs, but rather arms attached to their wings. Dragons (in particular Tolkien's drawing of Smaug) are portrayed as four legged with wings on their backs.
Eh, if the only difference is a set of limbs, I don't care. Wyvern/Dragon = Same shit. Big lizard who spews fire or some such.
I'd try and wake up the next morning to find out I just had the best sex of my life with a blow up doll doppleganger
So it's okay if I call whales dolphins right? It doesn't matter, they're all aquatic mammals. Hell I'll throw seals in there as well, there's hardly any difference.
>My statement still stands they're interchangeable in modern fantasy culture
That's where your point is invalid. If we're discussing Middle Earth shit he's >>100520491
right. If both Wyvern's and Dragons exist as separate beings in Tolkien's fiction, then simply interchange one for another is pretty lazy writing.
Don't forget penguins bro, they spend a lot of time in the water, surely that counts too right?
>a japanese video game dragon gave a better speech than a celebrated author/big budget movie could produce
that's kind of sad, they ought to be ashamed
Yeah, sure. Whatever; I'm no marine biologist.
>there are people that think the hobbit movies weren't complete horseshit
It totally would be ok. If whales and dolphins weren't real that is. Trying to equate mythology and fantasy with real world biology is laughably stupid.
Firstly, its a visual design issue, not a writing issue. Secondly, nobody cares. Wyverns and Dragons might as well be the same thing as far as most people watching the movie or reading the book are concerned. Getting bent out of shape because of a stylistic choice is stupid. As I've pointed out, you probably hate aSoIaF, Skyrim, and countless other works of fiction for not abiding by your centuries old version of mythology.
And I'm sure WoW just makes your soul writhe in agony.
I liked LotR, not super into it, but I really liked what I read of Silmarillion. I enjoy reading histories and religious texts, and it's pretty much both of those slapped together.
Wyverns are generally smaller, dumber, and do not possess the breath abilities of the European-styled dragons. Usually with two arms and two legs, but will still use all four for locomotion.
Drakes are more like scaled down dragons.
Wyrms are flightless dragons, though whether they are smaller or much larger than dragons is dependent on the region the folklore springs from. Wyrm is also the Old English for serpent and is one of the two originating names for dragons, the other being draca.
Asian dragons are their own mess of stuff but generally considered more benevolent than European dragons which are nearly always malevolent forces.
Could you post an excerpt?
Because Smaug's boast is one of my favorite lines in pretty much anything
I like how you make the distinction for all the different Draconian races. And yet fail to point out that Eastern Dragons are completely unrelated, and are only named that because western translators are lazy.
Why are you defending historical ignorance? I'll bet you're a Type-Moon fan.
Pretty much. Though GRRM could be fucking with everyone and have them turn out to be wyverns instead since the books have stated that all the dragons are gone, and since there's nobody left alive who can properly identify them as dragons everyone just assumes that they are.
That goddamned amazing voice. I almost felt bad for killing him.
I said that they're their own mess, that's how I excluded them from the discussion.
I'm not an Asian languages and/or mythologies scholar so I am dependent upon the English translations of works and have no idea what their own names for dragons are aside from Japan's being -ryu- or -ryuu- at some point in a long string of syllabaries describing the creature in every imaginable aspect including its favourite food.
I'm telling you that it doesn't matter either way. The movie's iteration was good. And calling bullshit because of centuries old mythology is inane. And yeah, I am a Type-moon fan. Does female Arthur get you mad? I hope you realize that King Arthur's mythos is literally just one bastardization after another up to Le Morte D'Arthur.
And yet 40 years ago, GRRM will be put up on the same pedestal that JRRT is now. Also, just because Tolkein was more allegorical and modern day fantasy is more literal, does not mean that one is better than the other.
>40 years ago
"What is your purpose here, Arisen? If you sought to live you had naught but run and hide yourself away. But then, tell me, child of man....what does it mean to live in truth? To wage war against the passing days? To pray to the unseen for a few breaths more? To raise grand cities from stone, and spawn new life in turn? Mankind has done this, yes, and more. But is the tapestry you weave truly of your own design?"
"Their kind is easy to fathom, they go on living from simple fear of death. But not mankind. Some welcome the end with arms outstretched, while others come to face death incarnate, arms in hand. I ask again, what is your purpose here Arisen?"
"One path to your survival, lies in my defeat. Still my heart, and you stay the coming end. Another path before you...is to offer up that which you hold most dear. Abandon all delusions of control."
All I know is that five fingered "lung/long" are imperial and are reserved from palace depiction only
Three fingered shits are okay for commoners to use
Source: Imma chink and my mommy said so
No he won't. People are already forgetting Jordan's Wheel of Time, and that was in the public eye for a lot longer. They're already pretending Goodkind's Sword of Truth didn't exist.
We remember Tolkien because there was less quality writing and less writing overall at the time.
Today we have a massive glut of fantasy, and everything gets drowned out by the new stuff every few years. Most people only know about Martin and ASoIaF because HBO found something with swords and tits that wasn't a gladiator show. Hell, most of them don't even know it's called ASoIaF.
You ignore the fact that Jordan and Goodkind's writing was abysmal. Martin will be remembered. As will Rothfuss once his books become more well known.
>They're already pretending Goodkind's Sword of Truth didn't exist.
We've been pretending for a lot longer than you know.
True story, I was gifted all the books one year and ended up selling them for a total of $20 to a used book store. I bought a bottle of cheap rum with that money and had a much better time.
That's interesting. I wonder what the reasoning behind that is, I'm gong to assume it has to do with the emperor's being descendants of the celestial dragons and they get to pick so fuck you. Five fingers are better, Emperor is better, ergo peasants can eat a less-fingered dick.
>And calling bullshit because of centuries old mythology is inane.
Except the centuries old mythology has been used all the way up to right now. I'm calling bullshit on writers not knowing the actual differences NOW. Many works that include both types make note of their differences. The lack of knowledge of the cultural mythos that has been used in an extant fashion. Its like those Titanfall fucks insisting that their giant piloted robots are not, in fact, mechs when they quite obviously are.
So is Martin's, I've read own all of these guys' series. Rothfuss might do better if he gets his flashback trilogy finished and gets to work on Kvothe-is-too-old-for-this-shit series, but even though I like his stuff I'm not going to pretend it's anything special. Granted, Kvothe hasn't had to fight an evil chicken or feel the need to describe his clothing and meals in minute painful detail for a few pages, so it has that up on them.
Abercrombie is trying too hard to be gritty, Sullivan too classicly fantasy upbeat, Bakker is forcing himself to be edgy for edginess' sake, Salvatore is still Drizzting it up and ruining Corona with prequels, and Sanderson can't quite back up his more interesting worlds and magic systems.
I know modern fantasy writing, for some reason I surround myself with it. Hopefully it improves, but people just copy other people or can't manage hold their own ideas together we aren't going to get anywhere.
I'm hanging onto all the hardcovers on the off chance I see him somewhere. I will return every one of them swiftly and painfully. Also, I once emailed him to tell him I liked one of his books and he called me a thief because apparently I got my book before street date.
>Mech is kind of a dirty word with us, we don’t >like it. These aren’t mechs," he said. "They are >something totally new and different. The Titans >are really an extension of the player.
>They are bigger, they are heavily armored, and >they give you kind of a second life but they are >agile, fun, and fast. They can dodge. It's not a >feeling of something slow and lumbering. It >really is an extension of you. You lose a little >bit of agility because you can't jump, but on the >ground these things are super agile tanks.
I wish I could unread that stupid bullshit.
Anyways. The difference between a Wyvern and Dragon has never been common knowledge. The Titanfall... thing is a problem of arrogance while the other is the fantasy power level of the general public being too low to know or care about the difference. Honestly, I think the "Wyvern" biology is more visually appealing anyways, at least with CGI. And I think Smaug is the coolest looking dragon I've seen in film or television. I don't care if its not right by nerd standards.
>So is Martin's
>And I think Smaug is the coolest looking dragon I've seen in film or television.
Not only does he have some of the most impressive and terrifying voice acting I've ever heard but he just LOOKS cool as well.
No, she's a second year. She's classmates with Ryuuko and Mako, so she's around 16-17.
I would have to hear it too unless it;s only text?
>The Titans >are really an extension of the player
So just like the mecha from Escaflowne or Eva? Nice to know they did no research into it whatsoever before dismissing it.
Great rebuttal. I going to assume you never experienced authors working from multiple POVs and separating each one's understanding of a single situation before GRRM? Sure, it's not all that common, but he's hardly the first to use it. I don't recall seeing anything particularly innovative from him. He plays magic use and fantastical elements to being outside influences, which again isn't as common in modern fantasy.
Or do you just really like Tyrion?
I don't care about Martin's other series. How is a Song of Ice and Fire written abysmally? Hell, How is Rothfuss "nothing special".
Compared to what exactly? What standards of judgment are you trying to use? Because honestly, Martin balances an a very well. And Rothfuss's writing is just brilliant. As in the words on paper read very very well.
Both are at least as good as Tolkien was in terms of actual writing. Tolkien just has the advantages of the blank slate to work with, and the fact that he's had several decades for literary society to warm up to him.
You mistake a lack of innovation for a lack of skill. Martin takes commonly used techniques and applies them to a genre that hasn't seen them used in a successful manner. The result is a great work of fiction and something that will be remembered, whether you care to acknowledge it or not.
I have it bookmarked
I haven't read Martin's Wild Cards stuff, so I'm going solely by Ice and Fire and a few standalones. Since he doesn't do anything new, I expect him to do the well-worked better for him to be deserving of the acclaim he gets. His stuff is pretty middle of the road, but with lots of main character death thrown in. Yes, the first time or two it took me aback and was a decent turn of events, but it's all he does now.
Rothuss is unproven as of now. He's filling in backstory for his character but making him way too goddamned perfect along the way. Yes, it is technically Kvothe's telling of the events and he'd skew them in his own favour, but it is getting a tad ridiculous as of the end of the second book. I am waiting to see what happens in the present timeline, since it's obvious that's where he's going with it, especially when you look back at his plan for the series. He approached the publisher with one volume, completely written, most likely to use as a introduction to the further adventures of old man Kvothe. Now he's had to go back and split and rewrite it all, so we'll see if he can get it back on track.
And I am of the opinion that he doesn't have that level of skill. He needs to either gain that skill, which is unlikely to happen at this point, or innovate enough to get away with retreading everything else. What is he applying that hasn't been applied successfully in fantasy before now?
>I don't recall seeing anything particularly innovative from him.
That isn't what "writing" means, you retard. That's plotting or storytelling or whatever.
"Writing" refers to the physical construction of the text, nothing else.
>Originality is all that matters
Go back to /a-- oh wait
>He called me a thief.
Yeah, that sounds like goodkind. He's an awful person who loves to shove his bondage fetish into his books.
Fine then, he's a mediocre storyteller and I won't comment on his writing. I'm not qualified to judge his writing because I lack the accreditation.
Originality OR comparable skill to present a well-worn type of work. Preferably both.
He's just a Randian fucktard who thinks he writes literature and not fantasy.
Yeah, though, admittedly, the first two books are pretty decent.
Oh no, somebodies representation of a fictional animal is different from yours. Stop the FUCKING presses.
Fixed that for you
>if the only difference is a set of limbs
Oh totally, If there was a 6 limbed man I totally would consider him the same as me
hell, SOME obese people and orangutangs differ by...not much at all, so they totally must be the same amirite
No, because whales and dolphins are REAL. Other people dont have to follow your definition of FICTIONAL creatures
You fags are doing this on /a/ now?
Goddamnit, is nowhere safe from your autism?
It's true. Yeah it was filler but oh my god what good filler it was.
...that was awful. Seriously. No wonder everyone thinks video games are for children.
It's more that Tolkien himself gave a description of how Smaug should look. And they walked all over it and insulted him by ignoring it.
>literature and not fantasy.
I hear this a lot, but I never see anyone explain this.
Video games are more respected than fantasy books, bruh.
That's a pretty strange kind of elitism going on.
If you tell someone you read genre fiction, people will laugh at you and you'll come across as a weird neckbeard.
If you tell someone that you play video games then they'll probably look at you weird, but only because you thought to mention doing something your entire demographic does already.
I've never understood that attitude about literature versus genre fiction, and I'm also surprised that people think genre fiction is solely the realm of neckbears