I'm pretty sure that the sigil issue is confusing cause the four legged one was designed first. I think the original artist who made the sigil made this not knowing that dragons had two legs in this world. So they modified it to remove two legs. But the effects team may have never got the memo, and kept using the asset interchangeable with the correct version. I think HOTD showrunner said he knew this and their is reason for the change. I think it looks fine. I can tell the incorrect one was made first due to fitting better with the space (aka Three Coils in the tail instead of two, and in the correct version, the legs not being stretched to more ostrich-like legs, which is not accurate with show dragon anatomy.) Idk, I Gueas pick your poison. Either way the Targaryen Sigil is badass. Edit: My own head-canon excuse for these changes is that maybe it alludes something from Valyrian Mythology. Like maybe the Mother-Goddess of Dragons was a multiheaded-multilimbed beast that gave birth to real dragons. And when Aegon unveiled his houses sigils, it was an allusion to that. Also, in mythology, real-world animals have aquired strange characteristics. Like the Horses of Odin having like 8 legs, sure the Norse Vikikings knew that horses only had 4 legs.
The reason this matters is because the dragons in ASOIAF are a genetic magic experiment GRRM's writing is a creative blend of fantasy and science fiction. He's always been a sci fi writer but it's only been his fantasy work that's been so popular. People want to separate the genres but ASOIAF is so magical because it's a master work of 2 genres completely intermixed. Valyrian's are psycho genetic mutating blood magic scientists in a medieval world. Dune and LOTR in one
D and D is at fault for ruining things for GoTs. HBO has no choice but to follow suit to them. And as an author and creator of the universe, GRRM has every right to become furious. If you had created a amazing world, and others messed it up, you would feel the same.
D & D made a LOT of mistakes but the number of legs a dragon has is not one. They ignored a BUNCH of stuff ALREADY WRITTEN and made it up as they went along after they got to WoW type situations. GRRM did not tell them who HE is placing on the throne, just made sure they already knew R+L=J. At the time that Lyanna gave birth she would not have known (and in fact, it might not have happened yet in world) that Rhaegar's older son NAMED AEGON might have been already met the Mountain. Jon Snow's TRUE name in the books and in Cannon will be AEMON Targaryen. Just like MAESTER AEMON, EGG'S BROTHER.
The wyvern vs dragon debate is superfluous, since even in irl history, dragons have never been consistent. In my opinion a “dragon” can be whatever an author deems it so, so if an author wants an apple to be a dragon so be it.
@@Latenivenatrix_Mcmasterae totally agree - he can call them whatever he wants. Just like in zombie movies they always call them something else (Walkers, living dead, white ones, infected, etc.). But whatever he calls them, he can't be butthurt about people using another term for them. Imagine being angry at people saying "elephant" instead of "olifant" in Lotr (and there, you'd actually have a better case)
This is such a dumb debate. There is no definitive version of a dragon. A dragon is whatever you make the dragon. As we see in china its translation is still dragon. Africa has dragon myths but they don’t look like welsh dragons, even in aztec empire they had dragons but don’t look like welsh dragons. Hence for a dragon being whatever YOU want a dragon to be.
@@TheMrPeteChannel if that’s what you call a dragon in your fantasy world yes it is. Arguing over what classifies as a dragon is some of the most ape brain shit I ever heard.
Well, there is absolutely no authority on how many limbs a fictional creature can have, and contrary to the autistocrats of youtube comment sections, there NEVER was a universal consensus in Europe on how many limbs a dragon has either. The idea that they all must have four legs plus wings is something solely from the D&D monster manual. The word dragon goes all the way back to the Greek "Drakon" and they also never specified limb count. The closest thing to any historical source was English heraldry, in which the scholars of the 17th century categorized 2 legged dragons as a wyverns or a subcategory of dragons, but even they considered them to still be a dragon, AND this only applied to English heraldry in only the 17th century. It was never used prior or since and was not a universally accepted distinction in any other part of Europe, even during the 17th century. Basically, there is no authoritative source stating Western dragons universally had four legs. It comes from D&D and that's it.
Why would you accuse people of having autism if all they want are nice neat categories for everything to perfectly fit into with clear, inflexible definitions so that they can be neatly lined up?
Just want to paraphrase what Ryan Cahill wrote, a self-publish indie author of the Bound and the Broken (high-fantasy series on dragon riders), why are we putting Dragons in a box? Who own these mythical creatures anyway? Who gets to decide what features they should have? Just let the authors define their versions of dragons. If GRRM envisions 2 legged dragons, let him have it.
There’s more in that blog post about his dragon lore that it now seems Hot D could be disregarding. The bit about information of dragon bond being revealed in Winds of Winter and Dream of Spring makes me think there’s some as of yet unrevealed rule being broken by Hot D and my first thought could be Seasmoke taking a new rider with Laenor still alive in the world. He also is very adamant that a wild dragon would not stray from Dragonstone so Sheepstealer’s apparent show location of the Vale is something he’d take issue with. Anywho these are the sort of nerdy details I find interesting.
I remember D&D from back when it was in a cellophane packet and a few pages, this *Argument was raging than too. I can't believe it's still going on. Two legs, Four legs or the Asian dragons that were ninety percent serpentine with minimal wings (if any at all) they're all Dragons. Consider the cats, some are Lions, Some Cheetahs, some Tigers or the most detached, common housecats, "They're all Cats". Add to that, saying some are and some are not will exclude some that person previously liked. Even Tolkien's dragon were not all the same form and who has big enough shoes to say he's wrong? There is no shortage of stories from the Real medieval times and their dragons were just as varied (even more actually) as any today. They're all Dragons.
My two cents on the wyvern/dragon debate is as such: I prefer dragons to have six limbs over four, but if you are going to have your dragon be depicted with four limbs and not call it a wyvern, then make it animalistic like Martin's dragons. When you try to make the dragon's intelligent and magical but keep the wyvern design, it takes away from their magesty.
@@anormalcrab8909 Creatives can most certainly make smart four limbed dragons if they wish. I was just sharing my personal opinion, which is that I don't think the four limbed variant works as well as the six limbed for intelligent dragons.
The debate is superfluous, a “dragon” could be whatever an author wants it to be since at the end of the day it just doesn’t matter, to argue about something so minuscule is redundant. Even irl people back in the day never consistently drawn ‘dragons’, the wyvern and dragon categorization never came up until more “recent” years since humans tend to love categorizing things to make things organized even when doing something like that is unrealistic in expectations
Man, I am almost 100% sure in the Brazilian translation there is explicitly passage where Stannis is on Dragon Stone looking at either the kitchen or some random tower, which are shaped like dragons, and he himself point out there dragons have 6 limbs (2 sets of legs and 2 wings) while wyverns have 4 limbs. I am gonna have to re-read the damn books to point this out if my memory isn't playing tricks on me.
I thought it was explained by Condal in an interview, that the way they wanted to portray is that Dany at the end of was reclaiming the ancient Targaryen sigil from the days of Aegon the conqueror and that that somewhere along the dance they changed it. Based on S02 of HotD, its clear the Greens modified the sigil and that is what was continued until the start of GoT. Its not a good explanation, but an explanation.
Hey, HBO ruined the last couple of seasons for _Game Of Thrones._ So yeah, things he would normally ignore, I'm betting he'd paying a little more attention to now. It is hilarious but he's got plenty of reason to freak out since HBO has already kind of ran series into the ground once.
It was not hbo it was the two show runners who ruined it hbo wanted them to do 2 more seasons in order to not have to rush the last bit of closing the characters stories
But the two show runners were asked to do star wars show so they rushed game of thrones to get to that.. but since GOT ended so badly they and no one liked it disney seid never mind to star wars from them
And the fact that this series of HOTD has already stated messing with the cannon in more perverse ways with nettles and sunfyre that have big famifications later in teh story.
Pardon me, i think its reasonable for the Targaryen sigils be slightly different. During the the time of Jaehareys I, he would use the main two-legged sigil. With his several kids, they would use the targaryen sigil with slight differences. So their family and the other high lords wouldn't confuse them, especially during the Great Council Session
Dragons cover a wide range of things. And what is considered a dragon is dependent on the universe of the writer in question. Martin however, says He dislikes the 6 Limbed Depictions cause they're not realistic. Yet still allows them to breath fire, be born of blood magic sacrifices and experimentation and they grow well beyond the size of any true living creature. It's kinda eh. That said. while a dragon might cover a wide rang of things. Wyverns generally only have one depiction, same as Griffons, or manticore or Giants and what have you. I haven't ever Seen a wyvern that wasn't 2 winged, two legged and comes with a tail barb. And griffons general are bird/lion sometimes with optional wings. Even if it's a made up creature, they often tend to be less mallable to alternate depictions in most cases. While dragons can be a wide range of creatures, If you try to say that in your world a Griffon is a small fey critter that likes to bark at you, you may find most people won't accept that. Or that a Zombie is actually a particularly sprightly young Child that farts rainbows, most people will just refuse to accept it. Dragons for better or for worse come in two main depictions. the western 6 limbed version and the Asian Lung. There are a few other options that mix and match the number of Limbs but in the end you still get big reptile like creature. The Wyvern just get thrown into the dragon pool cause it's pretty close.
I dont think Sunfyre is dead, I think they believe its slain & trying to make us think that it is, but we'll be in for a surprise when Rhaenyra meets her end.
I wish George would "snipe" the showrunners more before they wreck another story he wrote. Season 2 of HOTD was a dumpster fire of fan fiction redit romance and pointless plot lines.
GRRM is simply full of shit. Easy as that. The depiction of his dragons are wyverns. He could have just left it alone; being that wyverns are a type of dragon, but the fact that he makes a half-assed delineation and specifically states that wyverns are somehow different and also present in his work only makes his defensiveness look like backpedaling. He would have done himself a great service by saying NOTHING about it at all.
Sorry, GRRM is 100% wrong per every edition of D&D. Wyverns have 2 legs and don't breathe fire, and dragons have 4 legs and breath weapons. Stop kissing his ass for ripping off D&D poorly.
Yeah, there are rules - wyverns four legs, dragons six. I mean, sure, he can call his fire-breathing wyverns "dragons", but those terms were not invented by him. He decided to use the name of a pre-existing fantasy creature and use it to describe another pre-existing fantasy creature. I don't mind him doing so, but he ought to quit bitchin'!
The debate is superfluous, a “dragon” could be whatever an author wants it to be since at the end of the day it just doesn’t matter, to argue about something so minuscule is redundant. Even irl people back in the day never consistently drawn ‘dragons’, the wyvern and dragon categorization never came up until more “recent” years since humans tend to love categorizing things to make things organized even when doing something like that is unrealistic in expectations
@@leonrussell9607 that's not how language works. He can call them dragons instead of wyverns, just like he say "white ones" instead of ice zombies. Doesn't mean people calling them ice zombies are wrong. It's just an out-of-world name for in-world creatures. (And why would you use "acoustic" in that sentence? Autocorrect?)
