The article was originally published in November 2009.

Pan’s Labyrinth director Guillermo del Toro is currently at work on the two-part movie version of The Hobbit [editor's note: he since left the production]. Recently he talked to ComingSoon.net about his plans for the all-important look of the dragon, Smaug.

“The way Tolkien wrote it, already, is magnificent,” del Toro said. “It’s already a fantastic character. So, obviously, dragons, you ask every person what their best favorite dragon is, they will give you a different answer. In my mind, what we’re going to attempt on the design of this creature and the creation of this creature needs to push the envelope beyond anything you’ve ever seen on that kind of creature.”

Del Toro referred to the relatively few dragons that have been put on film over the years — not surprising given the costs involved. “One of the best and one of the strongest landmarks that almost nobody can overcome is Dragonslayer [a 1981 movie]. The design of the Vermithrax Pejorative is perhaps one of the most perfect creature designs ever made….I am bursting at the seams about spilling the beans [about our dragon], but I won’t because I would be shot.”

In anticipation of the movie, TheTorchOnline.com looks at — and rates — the most famous dragons that have existed on film, rating them from worst to best:

Dragonheart (1996)

GGI was newer, and we were all understandably excited. But it’s scary how quickly CGI can look dated. (The dragon in the Dragonheart sequel is downright laughable now.)

Dragon Rating: 2 Torches (Out of Five)

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)

A nice try, but too many horns (and actually a wyvern, not a dragon at all).

Dragon Rating: Three Torches (Out of Five)

The Hobbit (1977)

A little clunky now, but it made a strong impression on me at the time:

Dragon Rating: Three Torches (Out of Five)

Beowulf (2007)

Crappy movie, decent dragon, even if it doesn’t quite like a dragon “should”:

Dragon Rating: Three and Half Torches (Out of Five)

Eragon (2006)

Does anyone else think it looks like the Loch Ness Monster?

Dragon Rating: 4 Torches (out of Five)

Reign of Fire (2002)

Another bad movie with good dragons.

Dragon Rating: Four Torches (Out of Five)

The Seventh Voyage of Sinbad

Gotta love a classic. Yeah, it look s a little hackneyed by modern standards, but remember: Ray Harryhausen did this all in stop-motion, often by himself.

Dragon Rating: Four and a Half Torches (Out of Five)

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

Technically this is a “winged nazgul,” or a ringwraith on a perodactyl, not a dragon at all, but like everything about the LOTR’s movies, it’s still flawless.

Dragon Rating: Five Torches (Out of Five)

Dragonslayer (1981)

Del Toro is right: this is still the gold standard of movie dragons — and it was even done in an era before CGI. How the hell did they do it?

Five Torches (Out of Five)

Interested in buying any of these dragon movies (or any other media product)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing them through this link.

Have a question about something fantasy-related? Please send an email to thetorchonlineoracle@gmail.com and be sure and include your city and state and/or country.

Q: Hello great Oracle! Whenever I hear of a movie coming out featuring a dragon in it, my heart goes all aflutter, and I am ever so excited. However, imagine my disappointment when I do attend and find that the big scaly beastie before me is in fact a wyvern, and no dragon at all! Now perhaps this is just me, but I always thought dragons to be four-limbed creatures (not including wings), whereas a wyvern has only one set of limbs and a pair of wings. “Quasi” wyvern-dragons are found in Reign of Fire (which was horrid anyway) and Harry Potter (the Hungarion Horntail). So do I perhaps have it wrong? A dragon is a dragon is long as it has a breath weapon and flies? — Squeek, Ottawa, Ontario

The Oracle Speaks:

The otherwise cool Hungarian horntail

Dragons and wyverns are both creatures of myth and legend. As a result, there can’t really be a “right” or a “wrong” answer here. A writer, director, or CGI-designer, when confronted with the idea that his dragon is really a wyvern, can annoyingly respond, “What are you talking about? I just added to the legend! I made up new kind of dragon!”

He or she could also argue that wvyerns are a type of dragon, which I guess is a slightly stronger argument.

All this said, YOU, SQUEEK, ARE TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY RIGHT AND THE CREATORS OF ALL THESE STUPID FAKE DRAGONS ARE TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY WRONG!

There’s a tradition here, folks! The “dragon” appears in a surprisingly large number of different cultures over a long period of time. But what do all these “dragons” have in common?

That’s right! They all have four legs!

Likewise, a wyvern is also a very specific thing: a dragon-like reptilian creature, smaller than a dragon, with two legs and wings.

Simply saying, “They’re all dragons! What difference does it make?” is like saying, “Why can’t Santa Claus have whiskers and fur and crave tuna while playing with a catnip mouse?”

Santa could look and act like that. It’s just that anyone who knows anything about Santa Claus wouldn’t recognize him — and most people would even go so far as to say that the “Santa Claus” being described is some new and different creature entirely (”Santa Paws,” perhaps?).

There’s already a name for a “dragon” with two legs and wings. It’s called a wyvern. To portray a dragon as something other than that just shows you don’t know anything about dragons.

AND THIS IS A COMPLETELY REASONABLE POSITION TO TAKE, AND I’M NOT BEING A PURIST IN ANY WAY!

Q: So back on June 18, 1990, I was all, like, watching Star Trek: The Next Generation, and  it’s the killer season finale where the Borg capture and assimilate our beloved Captain Jean-Luc Picard, reincarnating him as “Locutus.” And the writers and producers and network let the episode get all capital-D “Dark” with Picard’s kidnapping and conversion, and amazingly left it as the season finale cliffhanger. Watching that episode, I was all, “TV will never be the same again. Fantastical stories can now finally go to the darkest places, where there is true risk and danger, and some wonderful characters may be irreparably altered, injured, morphed, or even killed.” Now the following season opener where the cliffhanger was resolved copped out — they went “happily ever after” — but still. As a medium, they had already irrevocably stepped into the dark side.  ”Surely this will happen again,” thought I. And years went by. Not until Battlestar Galactica in 2003 did it seem that television once again stepped into those same murky, dramatic waters. My questions are: (1) was that episode of ST:TNG pivotal for the Oracle? (2) Did it seem like a harbinger? (3) Have you seen other fantastical television that evinced that same dark side? — Bob, Durham, NC

The Oracle Speaks:

I absolutely, emphatically agree that that was a pivotal, shocking moment when television put the car in neutral, released the parking brake, and just sat there, dangerously waiting to see where things would crash. And I agree that Battlestar Galactica subsequently picked up the “dark” baton that ST: TNG had once carried.

But I don’t agree with you that that was the first time television had been so bold, nor that Battlestar Galactica was the next time television “went there.”

Sure, classic The Twilight Zone episodes like “To Serve Man” or “The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street” seem tame now, but they were just as shocking and provocative as ST: TNG at the time.

And I’d argue that the “Best of Both Worlds” (Locutus) ST: TNG episode actually set the series up for a dramatic uptick in quality in the seasons that followed, culminating in more dark and mind-blowing episodes like “Chain of Command” in the 6th season (where Picard is tortured and literally experiences a different reality as a result) and “The Face of the Enemy” (where Troi must impersonate a member of the Romulan’s KGB-like Tal Shiar and soon discovers how, on one level, she likes being an all-powerful dictator).

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, meanwhile, would go on to say some sporadically dark and interesting things about “terrorism” and exactly what is meant by “oppression.” I’ll be damned if Odo’s “Changeling” species didn’t end up being a very pointed metaphor for the incredibly depressing Israeli/Palestinian situation.

Tara dies pointlessly on "Buffy"

(Incidentally, as great and as chilling a plot device as the Borg were, I think the more we learned about them, the less interesting they became. I never bought the idea of the “queen,” which totally dumbed the “Borg” concept down — they’re a fricking collective — and I think cuddly, user-friendly “Hugh” sent them completely off the rails entirely, although Star Trek: Voyager subsequently managed to breathe some new life into the species, especially with Seven of Nine.)

Meanwhile, I’d also argue that shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1997-2003) went much further even than any of the above shows, killing major characters, sometimes randomly, and forcing others to confront their own angst and impotence by descending into masochism and open self-destruction.

And now there’s Spartacus: Blood and Sand, True Blood, and (admittedly not “genre” TV) Breaking Bad that I’d argue are just as dark, if not darker, than anything that happened on Buffy or Battlestar.

The point is, while I do praise and applaud that specific ST: TNG episode, I’d also merely place it in the longstanding progression of (some of) television becoming increasingly challenging and sophisticated as our species itself matures.

Have a question about something fantasy-related? Please send an email to thetorchonlineoracle@gmail.com and be sure and include your city and state and/or country.

Looking to buy any of the projects mentioned in this article (or any other media)? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter.