Why do dragons in movies tend to be beastlike murdermonsters with no intelligence?
The traditional dragon you'd see in something like LOTR or D&D is highly intelligent, but 99% of movie dragons are about as smart as an angry bear.
>>44179817
That seems inaccurate. What dragon movies come to mind to you, exactly? Because I think Flight of Dragons, Hobbit, Dragonheart, How to Train your Dragon and Reign of Fire. Which is only 20% mindless-monster. The other one that comes to mind is the one from Angel, which I'm pretty sure he ended becoming bros with, later on.
So I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about.
>>44179864
Dragonheart,
>>44179864
Maybe I'm over-exaggerating because of how much it annoys me when it happens, I guess.
>>44179931
I literally can't think of any but Reign of Fire where the dragons are mindless monsters. Except the d war movies, where they weren't really dragons of the kind you're talking about. Pete's dragon and the Dungeons & Dragons movies they weren't like that. I never read/saw Eragon, but they were smart in that, right?
So seriously though, what are you even talking about? Reign of Fire was like Dog Soldiers: it was a zombie movie where the zombies got switched out for something else in a way that was a lotta fun.
So are you talking about Song of Fire and Ice?
Cuz that shit sucks, dude. Why get hung up on it?
>>44180029
The Dungeons and Dragons movie had them being mind-controlled monsters, actually. That's what sparked this thread, actually. Me and some friends watched it on a Bad Movie night and that pissed me off to no end.
I could fucking swear I've seen this before, though. Maybe I'm just going crazy I guess.
It's funny, because I have a similar reaction when I read trash-tier fantasy fiction and rpg settings that wank over dragons who speak english and know magic and walk around in human form manipulating people for obscure goals. I mean what's even the point of having big fire-breathing tank-monsters if they're going to be all sophisticated.
All right Smaug was cool, I grant you, and he was kind of chatty. But he was still a savage, short-sighted beast who'd only condescend to talk to an intruder if they proved difficult to kill offhand. You wouldn't catch him reading a book.
>>44180119
But the dragons aren't mindless-they're mind-controlled. That's totally different. And to say it's outa line with D&D, which has potions of dragon control as a not-particularly-rare magic item, seems weird. I mean, you've got 5% of a 33% chance to come upon one any time you come across a potion, which has a 20% to come upon any time you find a magical item at all. So it's not like that's an outlandish artifact to introduce for a campaign center-piece. Particularly when you consider that it's been done in D&D, before.
>>44179817
>Why do dragons in movies tend to be beastlike murdermonsters with no intelligence?
They don't.
>>44179817
Because the depiction of dragons before those things is often that is a savage monster with only animal levels of intelligence? It's a giant, flying, firebreathing, reptile. Why does it matter if it can debate with you on the philosophies of Plato?
>>44179817
>LotR and DnD are traditional when it comes to dragons
Are you fucking high?
>>44179817
>The traditional dragon you'd see in something like LOTR or D&D
>traditional
>LOTR or D&D
it finally happened. I don't have disappointment.jpg expressive enough.
Because like 6 limbs, it isn't "realistic".
eh most movie ''dragons'' are wyverns
>>44179817
Easier to create tension and such without needing to find a way to A) Justify the bullshit in the movie not having happened already and B) Characterise a fucking Dragon in a way that most people would understand them as seperate and possessed of a unique mindset yet of equal intellect to us as a species
>>44186404
Also this. Its rare to see what one would define as a ''True'' Dragon, Wyverns (even if they breath fire) are more common
Some people like their dragons as intelligent magical creatures
Others like their dragons as apex predators at the top of the foodchain, yet still beasts. They are part of nature and even weird habits such as hoarding can be attributed to that (there are certain bird species that hoard everything blue to decorate their nests as part of a mating ritual)
And come to think of it, the last few dragons I saw were still intelligent, like in the Hobbit
>b-but wyvern
Lets not, shall we?
>>44183193
This is what I was talking about in the 'is Sauron an elf?' thread. It's nigh impossible to overstate how powerful Tolkien's influence has been on fantasy/medieval fiction.
>>44186355
>>44186404
>>44186739
Mostly because they look better to a modern aesthetic sense, realism doesn't matter when you have titanic murder lizards that spit literal fire.
>>44180119
Dude, that movie sucks with the force of a black hole to begin with.
Also:
I'm sick of intelligent and good-/or noble-/natured dragons.
Mindless beast is a different flavour of dragon, wich may or may not appeal, but it's not as overwhelmingly preminent as you suggest, so I can't see its problem.
I mourn the lack of purely fiendish, abominable dragons, which are the real deal for me.
The smart dragons don't get caught, and therefore don't end up in the movies as cartoonish murdervillains.
>>44180343
>dragons who speak english and know magic and walk around in human form manipulating people for obscure goals. I mean what's even the point of having big fire-breathing tank-monsters if they're going to be all sophisticated.
this
>>44180343
I completely agree. Dragons as shape-shifting refined, gentlemanly magic tricksters is as bad to me as the crap they sell for vampires, demons and werewolves in teen books/movies.
>>44186355
>>44186404
>>44186739
Also, there's this trend I won't ever get - snobbing four-limbed dragons as 'wyverns'. Because, really,
>Wyverns are dragons
>Dragons from different myths come in a fuckton of different shapes and variations by themselves
>Dragons are an extremely wide archetype shared, with obvious differences, by the majority of cultures. Wyverns are a very specific mythological creature, native of a specific and defined cultural background. Saying 'That's not a dragon, it has only four limbs, it's a wyvern!' is like saying 'That's not a fey, it's clearly a pixie!'
And, last but not least,
>Vermitraax Perjorative has four limbs
>>44188719
I normally define it as
>All wyverns are dragons but not all dragons are wyverns
>>44180343
Polymorphing dragons and draconic halfbreeds are abominations
>>44188355
Me too. I'm fine with there being intelligent dragons (especially in fantasy games where big monsters aren't all that uncommon: dragons being not only huge and powerful but also smart makes them more terrifying than just a big lizard), but the DnD-style "dragons for every aligment", and making all dragons super-intelligent spellcasters who can polymorph into human form doesn't really sit with me.
I consider Smaug and Vermithrax to be the quintessential dragons, intelligent but still monstrous and inhuman.
>>44179817
>Why do dragons in movies tend to be beastlike murdermonsters with no intelligence?
Because then said dragon would need to have more screentime and that will need more special effects which drastically increases increases budget. If said dragon is just a throwaway monster that has about 2 minutes of screentime then it will be cheaper but we will still have dragon in the film. Really, Anon this is not rocket science.
What if dragons who do take human form are treated like humans treat furries? And those who actually fuck a human are committing draconic bestiality.
Other dragons are like "You sick ape fucking faggot. Can't get pussy so you have to go fuck an animal? We ought to bury you in the deepest darkest Underdark prison cave along with the wyrmlingphiles."
>>44190808
>now the dragons who take human form who fuck humans have a plausible 'persecuted, misunderstood minority' narrative to make them even more sympathetic
>>44179817
The traditional dragon is in ancient epic poetry and medieval tales. They tend to be nonspeaking beastie creatures. Even when they could speak, they were rarely exceptionally intelligent.
Tolkien was nontraditional in this regard, as is DnD which copied it.
>>44179864
Congrats on blowing OP totally out- pls think before you start a topic in future
>>44190808
Dragons never really struck me as something craving validation from their peers though.
Who cares what the other fags think? They're not you, which means they're inherently dumber, less qualified to judge (least of all judge you) and less important than you.
