|
All book discussion in this thread is now allowed. |
On June 21 2011 11:19 Jyvblamo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 10:00 BallinWitStallin wrote:
Was anyone else pissed that the dragons were actually wyverns? Was anyone else pissed that the Canis dirus were actually Canis lupus familliaris?
lol, i thought it was amusing!
maybe they will give some dogs steroids for season 2
On June 21 2011 13:58 Lochat wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 10:36 gurrpp wrote:On June 21 2011 10:18 Magus wrote:On June 21 2011 10:15 travis wrote:On June 21 2011 10:00 BallinWitStallin wrote:
Was anyone else pissed that the dragons were actually wyverns? the fuck are you talking about, nerd like seriously, wow The front legs are the wings, thus they are wyverns.  Standard dragon is 4 legs and 2 wings, then you get drakes and wyverns and wyrms and all that jazz that are deviations on that. Although wyrm is just a slang for any dragon in some stuff... + Show Spoiler +There's no "standard"dragon. Depending on who you ask you'll get wildly different depictions of dragons. For example the chinese dragon doesn't even have wings. Just because its in the monster manual doesn't mean its the definitive dragon. Edit: I can't believe we're having this argument. Because people are ignorant doesn't mean their ignorant opinions hold weight. Ask the average moron what evolution via natural selection is, you'd get something so wildly stupid and ignorant you'll instantly become a misanthrope. I do, however, agree that it's an absurd point to complain about, regardless.
ignorant chinamen and their wingless dragons!
honestly though, this post im replying to right now is ridiculous in the context of the conversation
|
On June 21 2011 10:18 Magus wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 10:15 travis wrote:On June 21 2011 10:00 BallinWitStallin wrote:
Was anyone else pissed that the dragons were actually wyverns? the fuck are you talking about, nerd like seriously, wow The front legs are the wings, thus they are wyverns. Standard dragon is 4 legs and 2 wings, then you get drakes and wyverns and wyrms and all that jazz that are deviations on that. Although wyrm is just a slang for any dragon in some stuff...
If we were having this argument face to face, I would stab you. In the face.
|
they could grow legs later on in their life
i believe martin described them as 4 legs seperate from the wings so they will probably end up that way.
|
On June 21 2011 13:45 Surili wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 10:09 Tegin wrote:
Books imo. Books are always better than movies/tv and its the same in this case. Not necessarily true at all imho, the endings to Fight Club and Watchmen in the film adaptations were both better for example.
The ending in Watchmen was the same as in the graphic novel. How was it better?
|
On June 21 2011 16:26 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 13:45 Surili wrote:On June 21 2011 10:09 Tegin wrote:
Books imo. Books are always better than movies/tv and its the same in this case. Not necessarily true at all imho, the endings to Fight Club and Watchmen in the film adaptations were both better for example. The ending in Watchmen was the same as in the graphic novel. How was it better?
No they are not. Check out the books and look for the weird octopi.
|
On June 21 2011 16:26 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 13:45 Surili wrote:On June 21 2011 10:09 Tegin wrote:
Books imo. Books are always better than movies/tv and its the same in this case. Not necessarily true at all imho, the endings to Fight Club and Watchmen in the film adaptations were both better for example. The ending in Watchmen was the same as in the graphic novel. How was it better?
Dead wrong. In the graphic novel a monster is warped into NYC. In the movie it's some machine Ozymandias creates.
|
On June 21 2011 16:31 EnderCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 16:26 Manit0u wrote:On June 21 2011 13:45 Surili wrote:On June 21 2011 10:09 Tegin wrote:
Books imo. Books are always better than movies/tv and its the same in this case. Not necessarily true at all imho, the endings to Fight Club and Watchmen in the film adaptations were both better for example. The ending in Watchmen was the same as in the graphic novel. How was it better? Dead wrong. In the graphic novel a monster is warped into NYC. In the movie it's some machine Ozymandias creates.
...I've read the graphic novel and I don't remember this at all. Wow. I need to reread those 
On another note, the dragons look sick. I was also happy that the fire had the decency to burn Dany's clothes.
|
On June 21 2011 15:48 Acid~ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 10:18 Magus wrote:On June 21 2011 10:15 travis wrote:On June 21 2011 10:00 BallinWitStallin wrote:
Was anyone else pissed that the dragons were actually wyverns? the fuck are you talking about, nerd like seriously, wow The front legs are the wings, thus they are wyverns. Standard dragon is 4 legs and 2 wings, then you get drakes and wyverns and wyrms and all that jazz that are deviations on that. Although wyrm is just a slang for any dragon in some stuff... If we were having this argument face to face, I would stab you. In the face.
Why because he is right?
|
On June 21 2011 16:35 LeLeech wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 15:48 Acid~ wrote:On June 21 2011 10:18 Magus wrote:On June 21 2011 10:15 travis wrote:On June 21 2011 10:00 BallinWitStallin wrote:
Was anyone else pissed that the dragons were actually wyverns? the fuck are you talking about, nerd like seriously, wow The front legs are the wings, thus they are wyverns. Standard dragon is 4 legs and 2 wings, then you get drakes and wyverns and wyrms and all that jazz that are deviations on that. Although wyrm is just a slang for any dragon in some stuff... If we were having this argument face to face, I would stab you. In the face. Why because he is right?
No, because it is completely irrelevant to the series and story.
In the end the only thing that matters is that they will spit fire and burn shit, i hope.
|
On June 21 2011 16:39 zocktol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 16:35 LeLeech wrote:On June 21 2011 15:48 Acid~ wrote:On June 21 2011 10:18 Magus wrote:On June 21 2011 10:15 travis wrote:On June 21 2011 10:00 BallinWitStallin wrote:
Was anyone else pissed that the dragons were actually wyverns? the fuck are you talking about, nerd like seriously, wow The front legs are the wings, thus they are wyverns. Standard dragon is 4 legs and 2 wings, then you get drakes and wyverns and wyrms and all that jazz that are deviations on that. Although wyrm is just a slang for any dragon in some stuff... If we were having this argument face to face, I would stab you. In the face. Why because he is right? No, because it is completely irrelevant to the series and story. In the end the only thing that matters is that they will spit fire and burn shit, i hope.
Don't you think if they were called dragon eggs, that dragons would pop out of them?
Its like if they rode around on donkeys and called them horses. Can you imagine? "Well the donkeys still get them from place to place I sopose." Doesn't fly with some people.
|
The difference is, donkeys and horses are real. Dragons are not. People are free to have their own artistic interpretation of what they look like. However, I am sure if you offered to pay them the extra money to create 4 legged dragons, they would do so.
|
On June 21 2011 16:48 NearlyDead wrote:
The difference is, donkeys and horses are real. Dragons are not. People are free to have their own artistic interpretation of what they look like. However, I am sure if you offered to pay them the extra money to create 4 legged dragons, they would do so.
Why can you not have a discussion about a fictional or mythological creature?
Thor was a girl with a hammer, right?
|
On June 21 2011 16:52 CruS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 16:48 NearlyDead wrote:
The difference is, donkeys and horses are real. Dragons are not. People are free to have their own artistic interpretation of what they look like. However, I am sure if you offered to pay them the extra money to create 4 legged dragons, they would do so. Why can you not have a discussion about a fictional or mythological creature? Thor was a girl with a hammer, right?
no thor was a guy with a hammer
but if there had been comics or movies or stories or whatever the fuck where thor is a girl with a hammer then thor would be a guy or a girl with a hammer, get it?
|
On June 21 2011 16:48 NearlyDead wrote:
The difference is, donkeys and horses are real. Dragons are not. People are free to have their own artistic interpretation of what they look like. However, I am sure if you offered to pay them the extra money to create 4 legged dragons, they would do so.
Unicorns are mythical as well, but if you put wings on them they are no longer a unicorn.
It is well established that a horse/unicorn with wings is a Pegasus.
So replace donkey and horses with unicorns and Pegasus. The point still remains.
|
No, it isn't.
Dragons are nowhere written "in stone":
A D&D dragon is diffrent from a mythical dragon is diffrent from a chinese dragon is diffrent from a childs book Dragon....
"in the book" argument does not count, because it is not relevant".
Btw: They look more badass with their Wings attached to their front feet ayway.
|
On June 21 2011 16:53 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 16:52 CruS wrote:On June 21 2011 16:48 NearlyDead wrote:
The difference is, donkeys and horses are real. Dragons are not. People are free to have their own artistic interpretation of what they look like. However, I am sure if you offered to pay them the extra money to create 4 legged dragons, they would do so. Why can you not have a discussion about a fictional or mythological creature? Thor was a girl with a hammer, right? no thor was a guy with a hammer but if there had been comics or movies or stories or whatever the fuck where thor is a girl with a hammer then thor would be a guy or a girl with a hammer, get it?
Erm...
A more appropriate analogy would be if all male thunder gods were called Thor and all female thunder gods were called Susy, and a show had a male thundergod called Susy. Sure it's okay because it's imaginary and could be called anything, but it's still most likely an error unless it's being done to demonstrate a point or idea.
I am blown away by how many people are ostracizing that guy for making a distinction between wyverns and dragons. It's a completely valid thing to bring up... this thread is for discussing the show, and he is discussing it. He is not doing any harm pointing it out. Just because something doesn't exist outside of our imagination doesn't mean it shouldn't be defined and classified. It's not even that unreasonable of a thing to nitpick at... he was just drawing attention to a deviation from the standard definitions of certain mythical creatures. The level of hostility is really surprising.
Travis, your initial post talking down to him was really terrible and I have no idea how you didn't get a warning for it. I would report you but the button is mysteriously unavailable on your posts.
edit: here it is! How the shit is that acceptable?
+ Show Spoiler +On June 21 2011 10:15 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 10:00 BallinWitStallin wrote:
Was anyone else pissed that the dragons were actually wyverns? the fuck are you talking about, nerd like seriously, wow
|
On June 21 2011 16:59 LeLeech wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 16:48 NearlyDead wrote:
The difference is, donkeys and horses are real. Dragons are not. People are free to have their own artistic interpretation of what they look like. However, I am sure if you offered to pay them the extra money to create 4 legged dragons, they would do so. Unicorns are mythical as well, but if you put wings on them they are no longer a unicorn. It is well established that a horse/unicorn with wings is a Pegasus. So replace donkey and horses with unicorns and Pegasus. The point still remains.
Are you seriously arguing this? Seriously?
Fine, I'll let you argue it. Show me the evidence that clearly lays out which are dragons/wyverns/wyrms/whatever. It better be backed up with facts from reliable sources.
I'll be back in 5
|
On June 21 2011 16:59 LeLeech wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 16:48 NearlyDead wrote:
The difference is, donkeys and horses are real. Dragons are not. People are free to have their own artistic interpretation of what they look like. However, I am sure if you offered to pay them the extra money to create 4 legged dragons, they would do so. Unicorns are mythical as well, but if you put wings on them they are no longer a unicorn. It is well established that a horse/unicorn with wings is a Pegasus. So replace donkey and horses with unicorns and Pegasus. The point still remains.
So are zombies. Sometimes they run, sometimes they walk, sometimes they eat brains, sometimes they eat everything. Sometimes they are undead, sometimes they starve to death. Honestly, there are many good and bad artistic interpretations of zombies, all with different 'types' of zombies shambling and running around. Does it really matter, as long as the show is good?
|
On June 21 2011 17:08 SiguR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 16:53 travis wrote:On June 21 2011 16:52 CruS wrote:On June 21 2011 16:48 NearlyDead wrote:
The difference is, donkeys and horses are real. Dragons are not. People are free to have their own artistic interpretation of what they look like. However, I am sure if you offered to pay them the extra money to create 4 legged dragons, they would do so. Why can you not have a discussion about a fictional or mythological creature? Thor was a girl with a hammer, right? no thor was a guy with a hammer but if there had been comics or movies or stories or whatever the fuck where thor is a girl with a hammer then thor would be a guy or a girl with a hammer, get it? Erm... A more appropriate analogy would be if all male thunder gods were called Thor and all female thunder gods were called Susy, and a show had a male thundergod called Susy. Sure it's okay because it's imaginary and could be called anything, but it's still most likely an error unless it's being done to demonstrate a point or idea. However, I am blown away by how many people are ostracizing that guy for making a distinction between wyverns and dragons. It's a completely valid thing to bring up... this thread is for discussing the show, and he is discussing it. He is not doing any harm pointing it out. Just because something doesn't exist outside of our imagination doesn't mean it shouldn't be defined and classified. It's not even that unreasonable of a thing to nitpick at. The level of hostility is really surprising. Travis, your initial post talking down to him was really terrible and I have no idea how you didn't get a warning for it. I would report you but the button is mysteriously unavailable on your posts. edit: here it is! How the shit is that acceptable? + Show Spoiler +On June 21 2011 10:15 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2011 10:00 BallinWitStallin wrote:
Was anyone else pissed that the dragons were actually wyverns? the fuck are you talking about, nerd like seriously, wow
give me a break, the guy is obviously a massive nerd, so that isn't talking down to him at all
if he has a problem with the fact that he is a nerd then that's his issue. I have no problems with the fact that I am a nerd, and frankly I am insulted you think that there is anything wrong with being a nerd. So I will be expecting an apology. I actually am considering reporting *your* post for slandering my character by saying I was talking down to someone when I wasn't.
|
I wonder if this thread will have 9 months of discussions about dragon legs and unicorns. :3
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
