Comments: 48
DragonTamer01 [2013-01-21 16:45:40 +0000 UTC]
I watched all six episodes of Beast Legends and I thoroughly LOVED them!
I think they could have done a lot better with their Dragon though. What they made was no Dragon! It was literally a fire-breathing lizard that could glide like a flying squirrel. And your info on Dragons is a little incorrect. A TRUE Dragon is a six-limbed vertebrate: two front legs that can also double as hands, two back legs, and two wings that are completely separate from its front legs, usually placed on its back. If you want believable big dragons that can still fly, watch "Dragon's World: A Fantasy Made Real" by Animal Planet. That ficu-mentary (fictional story shot in documentary style) is a true Animal Planet original. I still own the DVD and will never get tired of watching it.
Other than that, great info and great drawings! I also made a custom list of creatures that I would love to see on Beast Legends if they ever made a Season 2, which I am still praying that they do. I thought about putting Sea Serpents on that list, but then I remembered that they started with the Kraken, and I immediately decided to change Sea Serpents to the ultimate marine monster. The only sea monster able to challenge the Kraken. Namely, the Leviathan!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DinoHunter2 In reply to DragonTamer01 [2013-01-21 19:54:51 +0000 UTC]
It was a surprisingly fun show! Their dragon was a pretty bizarre creature but to be honest I liked it more than some of their other creations. My main problem with the show was that they often relied on real world animals a little too heavily and it resulted in some boring looking creature designs. Still enjoyable to watch though, it's a shame it didn't last very long.
I'm not wrong for using the term dragon for my winged crocs, though, actually. I get where you're coming from, that layout can also be argued to be a wyvern, but the kind of creature you're describing is only the modern, Western idea of what a dragon looks like. The number of limbs on "true" medieval dragons varies a lot and some of them don't even have limbs; people didn't always distinguish between things like a wingless, two-legged dragon and a lindorm. The idea that all these creatures are different types of dragons identified by their specific type and number of limbs is mostly just our modern interpretation. TyrantisTerror did a pretty neat series on this a little while back that showed that a lot of things we'd identify today as wyverns, drakes, and amphipteres were just called "dragons" in medieval woodcuts. [link] , [link] , [link] , [link]
Anyway, thanks! Glad you liked them. Seeing their take on Leviathan would've been fun. No easy real world equivalent for that one, they'd have to get inventive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DragonTamer01 In reply to DinoHunter2 [2013-01-24 16:49:25 +0000 UTC]
Actually, there might be one for Leviathan.
I read in a book about Dragons which had a section on Leviathan, that some of the inspiration for his myth may have been brought about by the discovery of fossils that we now know belong to marine reptiles known as Mosasaurs.
So I think a Mosasaur might be a very good starting point, especially one of the 50-plus foot monsters like Tylosaurus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
AndornArakh In reply to DragonTamer01 [2014-04-22 16:59:59 +0000 UTC]
"A TRUE Dragon is a six-limbed vertebrate: two front legs that can also double as hands, two back legs, and two wings that are completely separate from its front legs, usually placed on its back"
Is that view of dragons one that comes from actual medeival mythology and folklore or more recent fantasy sources such as D&D?
Iv'e seen a few people who have strong opinions on how a dragon should look compared to a wyvern but I have seen a medeival beastiry with a four limbed reptile labeled as a dragon.
If you are trying to make a biologicly plausible creature then four limbs is the way to go as a six limbed creature can be a structural nightmare.
on side note I really like the gryphon, i had a design like that in mind this morning of having them walk on their wing arms like a bet or pterodactyl.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DragonTamer01 In reply to AndornArakh [2014-04-22 21:45:52 +0000 UTC]
Now that I think about it, it probably does come from more recent fantasy sources. But when I said that, I was (and still am, kind of) going by my own personal beliefs, opinions, and definitions of what defines a Dragon.
Here's my personal categorization system for the Dragon family, based on numbers of limbs and wings.
1. Wyrm: Wings-optional. Legs-none.
2. Drake: Wings-none. Legs-front and back.
3. Wyvern: Wings-front legs. Legs-back.
4. Dragon: Wings-separate pair on back. Legs-front and back.
Kind of a rigid classification system, but it's the one I tend to go by.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Jakegothicsnake [2012-10-18 07:55:34 +0000 UTC]
Very interesting! I've recently been thinking about doing a series of drawings of how I think the ancient hebrews would have classified the animal kingdom according to the Genesis narrative. From what I have read, there are six classes of animals: great sea monsters, swimming things, fowl/winged creatures, livestock/cattle, beasts of the field, and creeping things. I'm gong to put whales and sharks along with aquatic dinosaurs for great sea monsters, swimming things will just have regular fish along with dolphins and pinnipeds, birds and bats with pterodactyls and archaeopteryxes for fowl, regular farm animals for live stock, wild animals like wildcats/lions/tigers, elephants, wolves/wild dogs, bears, giraffes, and zebras with large land dinosaurs for beasts of the field, and bugs/insects/ with small reptiles and rodents. What do you think?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DinoHunter2 In reply to Jakegothicsnake [2012-10-18 23:03:29 +0000 UTC]
Ah. Then I'm definitely not grasping what you're going for, sorry. If the only difference is how you're classifying the animals, what's the difference between this idea and doing a series of normal wildlife illustrations? Is there a certain aesthetic you're going to use too, or bestiary-style descriptions that justify their placement?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BeastofKelloggCreek [2012-01-09 08:46:56 +0000 UTC]
Hahaha, I like the Rajang reference in the minotaur. It's really cool though, all of these things could be real animals. Kind of makes one wonder.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
dyga19 [2010-11-20 09:09:12 +0000 UTC]
ahh lotb, the good old days...that was a fun project. these are some cool creatures by the way!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
OperaGhost21 [2010-11-13 22:54:15 +0000 UTC]
This is such, SUCH an awesome concept...great stuff, DH
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DinoHunter2 In reply to OperaGhost21 [2010-11-13 23:13:52 +0000 UTC]
Thank you! I'm glad you like it so much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Gilarah93 [2010-10-16 02:08:43 +0000 UTC]
A very neat concept.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Spuderific [2010-10-11 14:55:04 +0000 UTC]
Wierd, Recently I had an idea to a scientific viewpoint on Dragons....
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DinoHunter2 In reply to Spuderific [2010-10-11 15:32:44 +0000 UTC]
Yeah? What were your ideas about it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Spuderific In reply to DinoHunter2 [2010-10-11 21:12:08 +0000 UTC]
something similiar to that Animal Planet Special, except giving each Dragon it's own scientific name and species
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
TyrantisTerror [2010-10-10 18:54:41 +0000 UTC]
An interesting thought experiment. There are some fascinating ideas for a more scientific approach to mythological creatures, which is a topic that's always interested me. Plus the monsters were pretty well drawn and colored.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
SuperSaiyan4Godzilla [2010-10-10 16:36:54 +0000 UTC]
Ah, you know what's funny Chris?
I was at my Scifi Writer's club meeting a week or so back and we were discussing Fantasy-Turned-Scifi and all...And everyone started to try to explain fantasy creatures in a scientific ways..
Everyone was like, "Fairy's are genetic modifications!"
I was like, "Bah. No, no, they're hyper evolved fireflies or something similar"...
And no one thought it was a good idea...But you, you evidently do!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SuperSaiyan4Godzilla In reply to DinoHunter2 [2010-10-10 16:50:45 +0000 UTC]
Oh Puck! I forgot about those human sized fairies..
[insert gay joke?]
Is that uncalled for?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
BullDan [2010-10-10 15:23:39 +0000 UTC]
i can't remember the last time i even heard the word manticore, thanks for reminding me.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DinoHunter2 In reply to BullDan [2010-10-10 16:41:11 +0000 UTC]
No problem. They're pretty neat creatures.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BullDan In reply to DinoHunter2 [2010-10-10 20:20:58 +0000 UTC]
have you considered drawing a will o' wisp?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DinoHunter2 In reply to BullDan [2010-10-10 22:36:06 +0000 UTC]
Hmmm, nope. Hadn't thought of them. I guess they might be something similar to the fairies, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
monkfishlover [2010-10-10 04:56:59 +0000 UTC]
Ooh what kind of mythology is Catoblepas from? I've only seen them in Final Fantasy 3...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DinoHunter2 In reply to monkfishlover [2010-10-10 16:44:14 +0000 UTC]
It's an Ethiopian critter. The description kinda varies from boar-like to buffalo-like but it's always a medium-sized plant eater with scaly skin and a head that's so heavy it has to always look down. Depending on the version of the story it might also have poisonous breath or the ability to kill with its stare.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
RenDragonClaw [2010-10-10 03:42:34 +0000 UTC]
This is awesome, its like Monster Hunter for the dark ages but replacing the hunters with knights and screaming peasents. I like the Manticore in particular, sounds like it would be a fun challenge to fully illustrate. The idea of tree climbing crocodiles evolving into dragons is just badass. Maybe they regurgitate if threatened and their vomit is not only powerfully acidic but actually combustable?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DinoHunter2 In reply to RenDragonClaw [2010-10-10 16:47:27 +0000 UTC]
Could be. I hadn't thought about it too much to be honest, I wanted to leave the fire breath to the imagination.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RenDragonClaw In reply to DinoHunter2 [2010-10-10 21:13:17 +0000 UTC]
Combustable vomit sounds AWESOME though I'd be wondering the mechanics of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
dinodude0091 [2010-10-10 02:50:24 +0000 UTC]
This is probably six different levels of awesome! The designs are a bit radical (like the archaeopterix-gryphon and monkey-minotaur), but the way you wrote the background information makes them work. I love how you've incorporated the details of these many mythological creatures in a way that stays true to the old legends and at the same time makes them seem scientifically believable (Rhino-unicorn and snapper-kappa are especially awesome).
By the way, do the dragons or wyverns breathe fire?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Dragonsmana [2010-10-10 00:33:10 +0000 UTC]
Awesome! I love all of these! And thier description, an easy +2! lol.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Ravensaurs-Rex [2010-10-09 23:59:21 +0000 UTC]
A rather different art style, but I feel it works well with the mythic elements of the monsters. All and all this is a damned good poke at trying to explain them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
DinoHunter2 In reply to Ravensaurs-Rex [2010-10-10 16:38:56 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, it's not exactly the most polished of artwork, lol. But it gets the point across well enough, and I'm fine with that. Glad you liked it, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ravensaurs-Rex In reply to DinoHunter2 [2010-10-10 18:03:21 +0000 UTC]
Polished be damned, this is still some pretty cool work. I just like the over all feeling.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
BrooksLeibee [2010-10-09 23:49:11 +0000 UTC]
very nice, also nice to see that your still messing with your tablet.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0