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.

Some fantasy films are made and immediately become a part of the cultural zeitgeist, integrating themselves into pop culture and slang, so that every movie-goer worth his or her salt understands a reference to Middle Earth, or can tell you what happens when you flick and swish your wand, chanting “Wingardium Leviosa.”

But not every film can be a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Some films are made and, through no fault of their own, never manage to find the enormous mainstream success that is so coveted. When this happens, these movies are banished to an ethereal storage dimension called the Cave of Forgotten Tales, and become lost to time.

But here in the offices of TheTorchOnline.com, we have a portal to this mysterious dimension, and from time to time, we venture into this cave, looking for the blockbusters that might, could, or should have been.

And then we review them.

Dragonslayer

Four and a Half Torches (Out of Five)

With my new Netflix iPad account, I’ve been re-watching a lot of old 80s fantasy movies lately, and I’m struck by one thing:

How incredibly bad they are!

Krull? Clash of the Titans? Both Conan movies? The acting is mostly terrible, the scripts are simple-minded and just plain awful, and the outdated special effects are downright laughable.

And these were not movies (like, say, The Beastmaster) with insignificant budgets!

Basically, these movies are watchable now only if you appreciate nostalgia or camp.

But there’s one 80s fantasy movie that stands out quite a bit farther than the others.

Yup, 1981’s Dragonslayer.

Okay, this isn’t exactly a “forgotten” tale. Sure, it was a notorious flop at the time of its release, but it’s gone on to become something of a cult classic.

It really, really deserves to be. The script is solid, and the acting is terrific — especially by a very young Peter MacNicol and the great stage actor Ralph Richardson who played a wizard before playing a wizard was cool.

But what’s amazing are the special effects. Using a combination of puppets, models, and life-size set pieces, and pioneering a new form of animation called “go-motion,” the movie almost looks contemporary. (In a way, it’s better than contemporary, because it looks more “real,” not obviously CGI.)

And don’t get me started on the design of the dragon itself, Vermithrax Pejorative, still possibly the greatest, most fully realized movie dragon of all time.

If the movie has a flaw, it’s in the third act, when Galen (after making two unsuccessful attempts to defeat the dragon, in classic “hero” fashion), makes his third attempt. But this time, rather than rely on his own strength and ingenuity, he basically lets the resurrected Ulrich the wizard take over. Sure, he takes an important action toward the end of the film, but even then, it’s an obvious one that doesn’t require much on Galen’s part.

In short, who’s the “dragonslayer” in this movie? Galen? That’s arguable, and since he’s the hero of the piece, that’s actually a pretty disappointing, unsatisfying conclusion (IMHO). He ends up being a by-stander in his own story.

But that’s a small quibble. This is a great fantasy film — made all the more impressive by the fact that it came out at a time when fantasy was a (more) mocked and marginalized movie genre. It doesn’t deserve to spend even a minute more in the Cave of Forgotten Tales.

A (great) fan-made trailer for Dragonslayer

Looking to buy something mentioned in this article? Support TheTorchOnline.com by purchasing it through this link.

Have a question about something fantasy-related? Ask the Oracle! (Be sure to include your first name and the city, state, and/or country you’re writing from.)

Q: Does a Deck of Many Things always include the same set of things? — Mark, Key West, FL

A: A Deck of Many Things is, of course, a powerful magic item from Dungeon & Dragons — possibly a source of great benefit, but also great tragedy. For example, one card grants you a wish, and another gives you a castle. But another card causes an emnity between you and a powerful being, and still another takes your soul. You must declare in advance how many cards you’re going to draw, and then you must draw that number of cards (unless you draw the jester, in which case you can draw two more cards). If you do not, the cards will draw themselves.

In short, the Deck of Many Things is the ultimate game of Russian roulette! Better still, it requires as an intriguing prop: an actual deck of tarot or playing cards, with each face card corresponding to a card in the “deck”.

Needless to say, the Deck of Many Things has long been one of the most sought-after magic items (and one of the Oracle’s favorites!).

The Oracle can reveal that a Deck of Many Things generally has 22 cards and yes, they are usually the same cards — although there have been versions with fewer cards (a 13-card deck appeared in Greyhawk, D & D’s first game suppliment, in 1975), and more cards (a 78-card deck appeared in an issue of Dragon Magazine, September 1983 #73).

But things never stay the same in D&D. Wizards of the Coast is, even now, adding cards to these mysterious decks. They even have a web feature where you can design your deck so that it applies specifically to your class.

Q: Last week, you rated dragons, saying that Dragonslayer’s “Vermithrax Pejorative” was the greatest movie dragon of all time. You also said they did it all before CGI. But how? How did they make it look so good? — Tom, Palm Springs, CA

In addition to the models, live-action puppets were used in some of the scenes; there were 15 different models and puppets in all.

And the piece de resistance was a full-sized, 40-foot hydraulically-powered dragon, with a movable, 10-foot high latex face.

But it wasn’t just the effects themselves that were so impressive. Much attention was paid to the way the dragon was designed. The creature was 40 feet long, but unlike many movie dragons, some thought was given as to how such a creature could actually fly. The wings were appropriately large — it had a wingspan of 90 feet — and the body was appropriately stream-lined, with semi-proper weight-distribution.

Plus, the thing just looked so damn cool — exactly like a real dragon should.

Q: What exactly is oobleck? — Molly, London, UK

A: In Dr. Seuss’ 1949 children’s book Bartholomew and the Oobleck (a sequel of sorts to The 500 Hats of Bartholomew Cubbins), the king grows bored with sun, rain, snow, and fog and asks his court wizards to conjure up something else. But in a classic case of not being careful what you wish for, that “something” turns out to be gobs of green sticky goo that fall from the sky, gumming up the kingdom — and blocking off the magicians’ caves, making reversal impossible.

Since oobleck is fictional, even the Oracle can’t say exactly what it is. But there are those who say it can be created with a mixure of water and cornstarch (in a ratio of between 2:1 and 3:2) and green food coloring. The result is a vicious, sticky goop that is neither liquid nor solid. It can be molded and will hold a shape – but only for a very short time.

Q: The Sci Fi Channel’s Legend of Earthsea. Worst. Fantasy. Adaptation. Ever? — Michael, Seattle, WA

A: The Oracle says, Oh, God yes! The less said about the disasterous 2004 adaptation of Ursula le Guin’s wonderful series of Earthsea novels, the better.

But interestingly, there was another adaptation two years later, Tales From Earthsea, an animated one from Japan’s Studio Ghibli (the same studio that produced Spirited Away). About the first adaptation, Le Guin was initially silent, but when the producers seemed to imply that she approved of their TV version, she wrote on her website, “I can only admire Mr [Executive Producer Robert] Halmi’s imagination, but I wish he’d left mine alone.” In articles for Slate and Locus, she wrote that she was particularly upset with their turning her dark-skinned characters white.

About the latter Japanese film, she said, “It is not my book. It is your movie. It is a good movie.”

Trailer for Gedo Senki (or Tales From Earthsea)