Smaug

[supervike]

He doesn't have bits of treasure stuck all over his belly.
I haven't bothered to see the movie, so am I to assume that Mr Jackson decided that that little detail needed to be changed from the proper tale?

Well, Mr. Jackson found plenty of little details he felt the need to change....

[Faust23]

Also, the video was ruined by the sub-par paintjob on Bilbo...

That was the first thing I noticed as well. 

[beefcake]

Definitely a nice model, though when they get that big, they start to look not much better than a $20 kids toy.

Also, the video was ruined by the sub-par paintjob on Bilbo...

Maybe it's actually a really great paint job on bilbo because they sculpted him to be only 1mm tall making smaig only about 20mm tall or so  . That would be a horrible surprise to find out after forking out £300

[Brummie Thug]

Is it finecast?

[guitarheroandy]

I think it's Forgeworld's resin, so a much stronger material...

[Connectamabob]

That aint a Dragon its a Wyvern as its only got 2 legs.. 

 

Oh no. Not that again.
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=60153.0

Dragons is dragons.

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

It's a great-looking model, and from what I can tell Smaug himself looks as though none of the scenic base elements are molded onto him, so a crafty modeler will find a way to mount the dragon either on the treasure-horde base or on a more generic rock promontory (or something similar) if he wants to use the dragon in a game without it appearing as though he's taken a chunk of Erebor with him.

I can't really comment too much on the price, other than to say that it's not surprisingly more than I'd be able or willing to pay, but for a kit this size, and cast in nice resin, I don't really know what else would be a good reference point.  GW gets a lot of flack for their prices, but in this case I find it difficult to argue that point.  The Greene Models version looks very nice, and is ~$100 USD cheaper (which still makes it very expensive), but I don't know how it compares in the size or material departments.

Overall, I would say GW has done a good job here, it looks like a great model for collectors and would make a beautiful display piece, and I'm sure the wealthy and ambitious gamer will find a way to make use of him as well.

Oh, now you've done it.

As a zoologist, I can appreciate your attention to detail, but if you're actually concerned with the functional anatomy of a dragon then I think the ventral scales should be the least of your concerns.

[CaptainHaddonCollider]

Well, Mr. Jackson found plenty of little details he felt the need to change....

Although the chest of Smaugs belly isn't 'jewel encusted' as per the book, he does shed coins and other valuables as he moves around.
While it's hard to see ones favourite book being exposed to creative freedom, I don't think one should be too fast to pass judgement on the project. I can highly recommend watching the appendices vol. 10 where the creation of the movie-Smaug is discussed at length. It gives a great insight into the design ideas and different pitches that were made prior to shooting of the films.

Although I have quite a few quips with movie-Smaug myself, I like the GW model. It's very true to it's subject, and even though I would never try to recreate Bilbos run-in with the great wyrm, I believe it would make a great centerpiece in any fantasy game.
Also, I think it's a great last sculpt from Mike Perry. I think it goes well into the go-out-with-a-bang category.

[psyberwyche]

Oh no. Not that again.
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=60153.0

Dragons is dragons.

On the one hand I agree that it doesn't matter (even though I've been geek enough to point it out myself). What *does* matter, to me at least, is that in the first movie he has four legs, and in the second he has two, because they decided 'it looked cooler'. FFS, at least be consistent. It's not like they didn't have all the time and money in the world to sort details like that out. And Smaug is a pretty important detail!

Still, it'll all be corrected in the DVD release, just like the LOTR glitch list back in the day 

*ahem*

Back on topic - nice model!

[Malebolgia]

I think it is poorly sculpted for the price. There are so many better alternatives available and most for better prices too.

[Zoggin-eck]

Is it finecast?

Perhaps wisely, they make it a point to say that it isn't:

"This magnificent 42 piece miniature is hand cast using the highest quality resin (the same used by Forge World)"

[matthais-mouse]

Oh, now you've done it.

In Tolkien and older legends, dragons and things are sometimes said to be like 'worms' or 'serpents', but in modern fantasy meedja almost everyone puts those snakelike ventral scales on dragons. The problem, IMO, is that those big, wide, single-row ventral scales are only found on limbless snakes. They're like that to reduce friction on the belly during locomotion and even aid rectilinear locomotion ('rib-walking').
I don't think a lot of fantasy artists know that type of scale is specifically snakelike, let alone that they have a specific function. Most seem to put them on dragons because they look 'kewl' and because 'everyone puts them on dragons; that's just what dragons have', and then go and turn them from smooth, flexible locomotor scales into great, thick, horny plates that look like concrete flagstones and about as flexible, or like an apron made out of the Michelin Man's skin. Often accompanied by a similar and even more baffling row along the back.
I'd like to see some more 2D or 3D dragons that show a bit more original thought or knowledge in their design, TBH, and skin's just one area. Something more lizard or crocodile-like. Or something even more esoteric. Y'know there's a Triceratops specimen with preserved skin texture? Small bumpy scales along the back, with occasional large polygonal plates scattered among them, and rectangular, croclike scales along the belly. Nice.

Some of you might laugh at me for taking this too seriously. You wouldn't be the first, or the loudest. But I'm fairly disappointed that this Smaug design has gone the same old way with it's belly scales. It seems that even one of the most iconic, explicit, plot-important designs/descriptions of a dragon character can't hold up in the face of a tired image cliche.

Well im glad I read that, it makes me feel better about pointing it out in the sense of now I may try convert a dragon miniature to have more realistic skin texture.
As for taking it seriously,  if others took ot as seriously we may yet have accurate representations haha....

[Vermis]

Oh no. Not that again.
http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=60153.0

Dragons is dragons.

Well said that man.

As a zoologist, I can appreciate your attention to detail, but if you're actually concerned with the functional anatomy of a dragon then I think the ventral scales should be the least of your concerns.

Well im glad I read that, it makes me feel better about pointing it out in the sense of now I may try convert a dragon miniature to have more realistic skin texture.
As for taking it seriously,  if others took ot as seriously we may yet have accurate representations haha....

As a zoology graduate, it's not so much about functional anatomy (well, not much) or accuracy (much to my regret, I've never seen a dragon, to say how accurate fantasy art and minis are!) as it is about verisimilitude and ranting about the kind of standardised ol' fantasy tropes like wot also annoys Connectamabob. Knowing a wee bit more than what may be normal about the staggering variety of life, is what makes me wish I could see a tad more variety in the forms and features of new dragon imagery, alongside the usual four-legs tyranid-armoured designs. More croc-scaled dragons! More feathered dragons! More hairy dragons! More two-leg-two-wing dragons! More eight-leg-four-wing dragons! Etc.

I definitely don't demand that people deface their dragon minis on my account! Though I'd be interested to see what you come up with, Matthias; it still mildly smarts to see the 'jewelled waistcoat' was done away with; and it'll be a while before I use 'uge ventral scales in my own designs. (I've had a couple of dragon-style creatures on corks for ages, should get round to finishing them sometime. One's directly inspired by this - six legs and two wings!)

[Whitwort Stormbringer]

Verm1s: haha, yes, I can certainly get behind that mentality!  Fantasy creatures are always more interesting when they take their inspiration from the staggering diversity of real organisms.

[Westfalia Chris]

More croc-scaled dragons! More feathered dragons! More hairy dragons! More two-leg-two-wing dragons! More eight-leg-four-wing dragons! Etc.

Disregarding the "a wizard did it" angle (well, Morgoth did it), are vertebrates with more than four limbs actually conceivable with some degree of plausibility, or has it just been by a whim of nature that no such creatures evolved in real life? I've been pondering that question since I saw Avatar and found the lack of consequence disturbing, i.e. that the Na'vi didn't have six limbs whereas pretty much all the higher fauna had.