What work cemented the visual look of western dragons?

[Bartmanhomer]

I believe Peelee is attempting to get you to walk through your thought processes so you can see the break in logic that he sees.

Ok. That make perfect sense.

[Errorname]

Are you serious or are you joking? But I'll play along anyway. Dragons are magical, so no, and also you're a dragon yourself Peelee. Speaking of which, why did you ask me those questions anyway? I'm not angry at you at all but I'm just curious.

A problem with 'mythical beast from medieval times' is that not only is that not a comprehensive description of what a dragon is (Dragons appear frequently in pre-medieval stories) but it's also a definition that winds up including a stuff that nobody would really call a dragon. Like magical/mythical beast from medieval times also describes a Unicorn, which is a sign that you've come up with a much too broad definition.

[Bartmanhomer]

A problem with 'mythical beast from medieval times' is that not only is that not a comprehensive description of what a dragon is (Dragons appear frequently in pre-medieval stories) but it's also a definition that winds up including a stuff that nobody would really call a dragon. Like magical/mythical beast from medieval times also describes a Unicorn, which is a sign that you've come up with a much too broad definition.

Ok, my bad then. Thank you for correcting me.

[Grim Portent]

Ok, my bad then. Thank you for correcting me.

To elaborate, things like the Tarrasque were part of the random assortment of monsters that were at one time called dragons, despite the early versions having nothing in common with what we now call dragons, and even later medieval versions being very undragonlike to our modern perspective. Dragon basically meant 'big monster,' with no defining qualities until later on. Such precise labels and terminology were not common until surprisingly recently.

We can go back and read a story about say... a basilisk, and conclude that it isn't a dragon, because we have culturally decided it isn't one, but the original stories might well use dragon and basilisk to refer to the same monster even within the same version of a story.

[Bartmanhomer]

To elaborate, things like the Tarrasque were part of the random assortment of monsters that were at one time called dragons, despite the early versions having nothing in common with what we now call dragons, and even later medieval versions being very undragonlike to our modern perspective. Dragon basically meant 'big monster,' with no defining qualities until later on. Such precise labels and terminology were not common until surprisingly recently.

We can go back and read a story about say... a basilisk, and conclude that it isn't a dragon, because we have culturally decided it isn't one, but the original stories might well use dragon and basilisk to refer to the same monster even within the same version of a story.

Ok. Now I understand.

[Precure]

I don't think many original dragons were magical, considering they're evolved from common snakes.

[Metastachydium]

They never stopped appearing, they stopped being called dragons.

Not true. Snakelike (but nevertheless commonly flying) creatures with no breath weapon continued to be called dragons in Central/Eastern/Southeastern European folklore at least as late as the 19th/early 20th century, and if they aren't anymore (which I wouldn't dare state off-handedly), that has more to do with the decline of such particular folkloric traditions in a globalized world than 15th century heraldic conventions.

A problem with 'mythical beast from medieval times' is that not only is that not a comprehensive description of what a dragon is (Dragons appear frequently in pre-medieval stories) but it's also a definition that winds up including a stuff that nobody would really call a dragon. Like magical/mythical beast from medieval times also describes a Unicorn, which is a sign that you've come up with a much too broad definition.

Ok, my bad then. Thank you for correcting me.

Also, you seem to be conflating D&D creature types (such as Magical Beast and Dragon) with terms and concepts that preexist these. Yes, in the former sense you can and do have creatures with all the physical traits commonly associated with "what makes a dragon" that are Magical Beasts, Aberrations, or heck, even Monstrous Humanoids, as well as Dragons that really nobody would recognize as such without prompting, but that's somewhat beside the point.

[Bartmanhomer]

Also, you seem to be conflating D&D creature types (such as Magical Beast and Dragon) with terms and concepts that preexist these. Yes, in the former sense you can and do have creatures with all the physical traits commonly associated with "what makes a dragon" that are Magical Beasts, Aberrations, or heck, even Monstrous Humanoids, as well as Dragons that really nobody would recognize as such without prompting, but that's somewhat beside the point.

Yes that what first comes in my mind about D&D Creature Types.

[Ionathus]

On thinking about it some more, there is one notable exception: A highly-iconic modern dragon, that is massively large, with fore and hind limbs, a weaponized long tail, and a breath weapon... but with a short neck and no wings.

I don't know if dragons are allowed to lack wings in my personal reckoning of what "dragons" are. I'd sooner sacrifice the breath weapon, the four legs, or the size before I sacrificed the wings.

This is making me wonder about "tolerances" for the dragon body plan: which features are truly sacred, and which are negotiable, in the average audience member's eyes? What could you "get away with" calling a dragon these days?

[Grim Portent]

I don't know if dragons are allowed to lack wings in my personal reckoning of what "dragons" are. I'd sooner sacrifice the breath weapon, the four legs, or the size before I sacrificed the wings.

This is making me wonder about "tolerances" for the dragon body plan: which features are truly sacred, and which are negotiable, in the average audience member's eyes? What could you "get away with" calling a dragon these days?

I come at them from a kind of folklore standpoint, so least important feature is the size, then the wings, then the breath weapon, then the legs. One of the famous dragons of England is the Knucker, and it was a well dwelling big snake with legs and poisonous bite and/or breath.

You can winnow dragon down to 'reptilian monster' and they still work.

[Chronos]

All I know is, I'm sure not going to tell Godzilla that he's not a dragon.

[Chronos]

Not even all of Tolkien's dragons had wings. It took Morgoth a while to figure out the whole flight thing.

[halfeye]

I don't know if dragons are allowed to lack wings in my personal reckoning of what "dragons" are. I'd sooner sacrifice the breath weapon, the four legs, or the size before I sacrificed the wings.

This is making me wonder about "tolerances" for the dragon body plan: which features are truly sacred, and which are negotiable, in the average audience member's eyes? What could you "get away with" calling a dragon these days?

Hm, I'd say there are two types of dragon, western and Chinese, both fly, the chinese without wings, the chinese have whiskers and horns, the western/european doesn't necessarily have either (though they can), I suspect the breath weapon is mainly european. That's probably about it on dragons from me.

[Peelee]

Hm, I'd say there are two types of dragon, western and Chinese,

Western and Eastern. Or Asian, if you prefer. Korea also famously had dragon mythology and folklore.

[Mordar]

What do you think a dragon is?

Loud bags of experience points and gold coins? Sometimes with funny hair?

Wings are very important to the modern dragon, and Godzilla has always been more of a dinosaur.

All I know is, I'm sure not going to tell Godzilla that he's not a dragon.

Especially since the way he swims calls to mind Asian/Eastern Dragon to me. Particularly with an embodiment twist - maybe the embodiment of ecological resurgence?

- M

[Errorname]

Not true. Snakelike (but nevertheless commonly flying) creatures with no breath weapon continued to be called dragons in Central/Eastern/Southeastern European folklore at least as late as the 19th/early 20th century, and if they aren't anymore (which I wouldn't dare state off-handedly), that has more to do with the decline of such particular folkloric traditions in a globalized world than 15th century heraldic conventions.

For what it's worth, I don't think snakelike dragons are outside the bounds of modern dragon depictions. Like the Jackson film's take on Smaug was very snakey but still well within the bounds of a modern western dragon.

What I think we've lost are the more chimeric dragons, which are generally not considered proper dragons and are given their own names

All I know is, I'm sure not going to tell Godzilla that he's not a dragon.

Dinosaurs are still cool! It's not an insult to say he's more of a dinosaur than a dragon.

Hm, I'd say there are two types of dragon, western and Chinese, both fly, the chinese without wings, the chinese have whiskers and horns, the western/european doesn't necessarily have either (though they can), I suspect the breath weapon is mainly european. That's probably about it on dragons from me.

I think these are different enough that drawing a distinction between "Dragon" and "Lóng" is useful, but there's a lot of cross-pollination these days and I think the ship has sailed on not syncretizing them.

[Bohandas]

Eastern dragons are usually very noodley and cylindrical afaik so that means snake-like dragons are in but also that godzilla is out as an eastern dragon

[Trixie_One]

If only dragons were real that would be awesome.

There's a really great David Attenborough doc which basically plays like of those where they discuss a specific dinosaur from excavating the bones, recreations of how it might have behaved etc. but instead of a dinosaur they've found the remains of a fire breathing dragon and they treat it like it was something that was entirely real. It's really wonderful.

Would love to revisit but due to his massive body of work, including several ones that also used 'dragon' in the title it's proving resistant to a quick google.

[Batcathat]

There's a really great David Attenborough doc which basically plays like of those where they discuss a specific dinosaur from excavating the bones, recreations of how it might have behaved etc. but instead of a dinosaur they've found the remains of a fire breathing dragon and they treat it like it was something that was entirely real. It's really wonderful.

Would love to revisit but due to his massive body of work, including several ones that also used 'dragon' in the title it's proving resistant to a quick google.

It sounds like it could be this one, though I'm not sure it has David Attenborough. In any case, I think this one is pretty neat.

EDIT: It occurred to me that the Youtube-video I linked might be of questionable legality, so just to be on the safe side I changed it to the movie's TV trope-page.

[Mordar]

Eastern dragons are usually very noodley and cylindrical afaik so that means snake-like dragons are in but also that godzilla is out as an eastern dragon

While I'm not sure how strongly I feel about Godzilla = Dragon (though I do think some of the more recent films have presented some elements that make that connection - movement, certain visuals), I do feel pretty confident in this:

We have seen, even in my lifetime, a significant increase in the size and bulk of "Western" dragons. They used to be pretty noodley and snakelike too...and now they are almost always jacked, as well as being event bigger. No reason to think the same couldn't apply to "Eastern" dragons. They're all doing P90X.

- M

[Errorname]

It sounds like it could be this one, though I'm not sure it has David Attenborough. In any case, I think this one is pretty neat.

It's not. Considering that Attenborough refused to sign on for Walking with Dinosaurs because he didn't think the science was up to his standards I doubt he'd have been willing to attach his name to a fake documentary.

Honestly I watched some of it on youtube and I gotta say, I remembered it being better.

We have seen, even in my lifetime, a significant increase in the size and bulk of "Western" dragons. They used to be pretty noodley and snakelike too...and now they are almost always jacked, as well as being event bigger. No reason to think the same couldn't apply to "Eastern" dragons. They're all doing P90X.

I do not think that same shift is in evidence for the Longs, which have largely retained their serpentine features.

The shift away from serpents for western dragons is easily explained by increasing influence from actual giant reptiles which europeans back in medieval times would have been relatively unfamiliar with. I'm sure if Megalosaurus had been discovered by a monk we'd have seen a comparable shift in how they drew dragons back then too.

[Seppl]

The shift away from serpents for western dragons is easily explained by increasing influence from actual giant reptiles which europeans back in medieval times would have been relatively unfamiliar with. I'm sure if Megalosaurus had been discovered by a monk we'd have seen a comparable shift in how they drew dragons back then too.

Also, western Dragons are usually mighty and menacing, whereas eastern dragons are more of the wise and friendly sort. You do not need to be big to visually establish wisdom. But a horse sized flamethrower will not do as a menace in the age of guns and war machines. Even if the story is set in an age of sword and sorcery, the audience would still think "a shotgun would solve this!".