Creating Realistic Dragons

Dragons are mythical creatures that come in many shapes and sizes. Here I will be focusing on the idea of winged dragons; looking at the more Western idea of the great lizards, as opposed to the Asian flightless versions.

Western dragons are often represented thus:

Now, this looks alright; It's very clearly a dragon and its musculature looks good. But what about those wings? Could they really lift such a hefty muscular beast off the ground at all, let alone provide it with adequate flight? I doubt it. Now, there could be the explanation that this dragon's wings have atrophied over time as it slumbered for centuries, that would of course be possible. Or a more radical solution is that it's actually filled with a lighter-than-air gas such as hydrogen (this could explain the fire breathing too). More realistically though is that the artist didn't fully consider the creature's anatomy and was just going for a fantastical image. This is perfectly fine and I have no qualms with that, but for me, I want to seek the look of a more realistic creature.

The first place I looked to was of course a dragon's closest relatives, the dinosaurs. There was a time when dinosaur bones were believed to be the bones of the dragons of legend and there are probably still those who believe this today, so it makes sense to start here.
Now, the main problem I have had is with envisioning where the dragon's fore limbs and wings would be positioned in order to let it fly effectively but still have usable arms. It wasn't until I looked more into theropod dinosaurs (those that walked on two legs), and in particular Spinosaurus, that I discovered the interesting placement of the arms and how it left room (in theory) to attach the wings above them.

With the fore-limbs close together near the centre of where the Spinosaurus' breast plate would be and the shoulder blades reaching all the way back, it would seem possible to alter the bone structure slightly to accommodate for this.

Now, as I'm sure most people will know, it is held in scientific belief that modern day birds are descended from those mighty theropods, and given that the only true flying creatures that exist here (not including insects) are of course birds and bats, it makes sense to therefor look at their anatomy and see what can be used in the design of a realistic dragon. Fortunately, one of the recent books I acquired is 'The Unfeathered Bird' by Katrina van Grouw and it goes into incredible detail on the anatomy for birds. Now this varies from bird to bird, but many have hollow bones to reduce the weight in the creature, so it is perfectly plausible that a dragon could adopt this same anatomy. The other option could be, like bats, to have very thin bones, though this seems less likely if dragons were to be closer related to dinosaurs. For a creature to fly it has to take off somehow, be that getting a running start, jumping from a ledge, whatever. So for example, some birds would use powerful hind leg muscles to propel themselves into the air from the ground, where as creatures like bats have to drop from where the hang to start flying as their hind limbs are small and almost atrophied. This would make a big distinction and difference in the design of the dragon, so it could be the case that either option could be adopted depending on the desired aesthetic. In any case, the 'classic' western dragon would be more like a bird of prey with large wings and powerful hind limbs to get it in the air.

Back to The Unfeathered Bird though. I imagine a dragon's skeletal structure to be something similar to that of a birds, or more, a hybrid of bird and dinosaur, combining the necessaries to create a believable beast. Quoting from the book:

'Flight makes rather specific demands on the physical engineering of an animal. The skeleton needs to be of a lightweight structure, with large flattened surfaces for the attachment of muscles, and to have tremendous rigidity and the strength to support the weight of the animal while airborne.'

'The trunk of a bird's body is rigidly immovable . . . no matter what the bird is doing, the body always remains virtually the same shape.'

'The thorax - the front end of the trunk - is composed of the ribcage, breastbone, and pectoral girdle, which together support most of the machinery for flight. The breastbone, or sternum, is enormous . . . and is uniquely furnished with a plate-like keel along its midline . . . providing a broad surface for the attachment of the flight muscles. In general . . . the stronger the flier, the broader the breastbone and the deeper the keel.'

'For aerodynamic reasons, it's better to keep the wings as slender and as lightweight as possible, so birds have long tendons that may even span several joints, so they can keep the majority of their musculature concentrated toward the center of their frame.'

'There's little skeleton to see on the underside of a freshly skinned bird, however. The breast muscles dominate everything. They engulf the entire breastbone and keel, overlap onto the ribs, and cover the coracoids completely, extending all the way to the edges of the wishbone where they round out majestically to their insertion points on the wings.'

'Even the backbone of birds becomes rod-like and rigid soon after it has left the neck and entered the thorax. Indeed, in some groups many of the thoracic vertebrae are fused together into a single bone.'

'Fusion of bones is extensive in the avian skeleton. It has the dual function of reducing the weight of the bird and helping provide that all-important rigidity.'

So as you can see there, there are quite a few requirements that need to be met for a dragon to fly. Of course, these are all just guidelines, as when it really comes down to it, dragons aren't real and can look great without following these rules. It is still my endeavour however to create a 'realistic' dragon based on my research that I have conducted, so I shall take one of the dragon sketches I did whilst designing some of the creatures from the 'Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them' by J.K.Rowling.

On a slight side note, I came across an interesting article (http://www.thefastertimes.com/dinosaurs/2009/09/03/bouncing-pterosaurs/) concerning the science behind how the massive pterasaurs from prehistoric times would have gone from ground to air, given their similarity in structure to bats, but their size obviously preventing dropping from a simple tree branch. This reconstructed video of the skeleton of a pterasaur gives a potential solution to the problem and it's really rather ingenious:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALziqtuLxBQ

This means that I could also design dragons in such a way, where their back legs are weaker, but their forelegs, or even wings, are incredibly powerful and allow them to launch from the ground in a sort of leap.

Returning to designing a realistic dragon for myself however, here are the dragon sketches I did previously to this:

As you can clearly see, I did all these without this knowledge and thus based my designs on the conformed idea of the design of Western dragons (apart from the Chinese Fireball of course). It is therefor my goal now to take one of these designs and revamp it, making it more realistic based on the information I have collected.


I have decided to go with the Peruvian Vipertooth sketch as I really like its facial expression and design in particular.

I started with the skeleton of the dragon. Notice the arm placement based on the Spinosaurus skeleton posted earlier, as well as the keel bone present in the torso. I also opted for a bat-like rear end and wings, based on the Pterasaur research I found, aiming to keep the bones thin to reduce weight and add power to the frontal limbs and wings.

Onto the muscle structure, I used layout paper (a sort of tracing paper) to draw over the top of the skeleton, attaching muscles to their appropriate places, based on The Unfeathered Bird book, as well as this rather excellent image of a bat's muscular anatomy:

I made sure to maintain the large breast muscles that are present on a bird and fit them in with the addition of having the secondary set of limbs at the front. I also decided at this point that the Vipertooth would have wings similar to a bat in structure, and thus the membrane attaches from it's wings to it's legs and then to it's tail, as demonstrated in the bat anatomy picture above.

Lastly I added the skin to the dragon, basing the details on the original sketch of the creature, and adding extra skin around areas such as the throat and tail to stop them from looking to thin.

I am rather pleased with how the Peruvian Vipertooth has turned out, the process of going through the anatomy from skeleton to muscles to skin was truly a fascinating one. It really helped me to understand better as to where muscles should be placed and enhanced the idea of functional form. I can easily imagine this dragon using its large forelimbs and wings to boost itself off the ground from a stationary position. The neck I gave it, similar to that of a birds, helps add to the snake-like appearance that I was aiming for and I can imagine it striking rapidly from that coiled position. I think the hind legs perhaps require more work, so I plan on taking this into a more finished design with the addition of colour.

To add to the work of building creatures up, I decided to take one of the monsters from the game franchise Monster Hunter, the Barioth, and skin it to try to identify the skeletal and muscular structure beneath what is shown to the player.

Barioth from Monster Hunter

So, to begin, I created a normal skin-on version of the Barioth based on reference imagery:

I then decided that the next best step would be to strip it down completely and design its skeleton. I took what I had learnt from the Peruvian Vipertooth and applied it here. The main difference is that Barioth is a wyvern, not a dragon, so it meant that I could follow bird anatomy more closely without the hassle of having an extra set of arms to add in. Again, notice the keel bone in its chest.

And of course from there I worked up the muscles, alternating between the skeleton and skin versions to get a better idea of where to place them and how thick they should be in places. I took a lot of reference from the Animal Anatomy for Artists book, looking at the lion muscle structure in particular, as Barioth is clearly based off of a big cat of sorts. Combining that with some bird anatomy led me to creating the fleshed out beast.

This was a really interesting exercise, as it forced me to think more about the creatures that I have known for years just based on the outer design. It was really fun taking apart a creature to see what was inside, but having to more or less make it up, based of course on the references and research knowledge I had attained. I am keen to build up more creatures from their bare bones and potentially strip down others as well to build up a portfolio of anatomy studies of fantasy beasts.

Progress Presentation - A Reflection

Weeks 5 and 6  saw the first of the fourth year presentations and an initial benchmark that would help show and define our projects and to help us put them together and hopefully get some feedback. My presentation was in week 6, so I have since then been thinking and reflecting on it and where I am to go next.

Before reflection however, I would like to take this time to go through my presentation and discuss on here what I talked about in front of the class and lecturers.

 Firstly I introduced myself and my project's overarching theme, 2D creature design before swiftly moving on to my main inspiration for the project:

Here I quoted Terryl Whitlatch and explained that I am not seeking to challenge her view or opinion, rather, I wish to explore it and understand it better, whilst also looking into the possibility of ideas that would go against the theories she has provided. As it stands though, I am on her side of the field, I just feel my project can advance more and shift and change by exploring, as opposed to sitting in one position.

I then put forward my first key question of my project and discussed as to whether believability of a creature and its appeal to an audience are separate or co-existing ideas. What I mean by that is, if the end goal of a design is to enthral an audience, is it possible to achieve said goal with only one of those factors, or are both required to be successful?

 I moved on to discuss the fact that creature design is of course based on the genre it is placed in, for example, the Alien is designed to scare and I believe it to be a very successful design in that respect. Interestingly though, my lecturer Lynn said she wasn't keen on the Alien's design, which I was taken aback by, as I always just took it for granted that everyone thought it was good. This is something I will come back to discuss later.

 I went on to ask another key question, which I immediately countered with a different question, 'Do creatures need to be believable to ensure their purpose?'. I took this forward and discussed it with an example:

I used Pacific Rim as my example, and in particular, the Kaiju monsters from the film. To me, the Kaiju, and the film as a whole, are pretty much just cool for coolness sake. The film was intended to just be an awesome monsters vs giant mechs fest and in that regard it was a massive success. But are the Kaiju in the film believable? Could you imagine one of them in real life? Part of me thinks no, but then, the designs just look right to the eye. It's hard to explain, as it's more of a feeling, but whilst I couldn't actually believe the Kaiju to exist, their design captured me whilst watching the film and I was enthralled as they were so successful in fulfilling their purpose of being awesome. 

 This led on to me coming up with a proposal statement of sorts; something which I could use as a base and expand and explore. The idea being that a creature design is based on its intended purpose; its purpose is based on the media that represents it. A designs success is not based on the representational media's success; its success is determined by its ability to fulfil its purpose. I went on to provide an example of this:

For me, Godzilla's design in the 2014 film was truly something to behold. He was massive and stuck to his original roots, whilst updating the design somewhat to bring more life and believability to the creature. However, the film in my opinion was incredibly boring. Godzilla was in fact only present for a total of approximately 8 minutes of screen time. Whilst I know this fits with the original Japanese films where Godzilla is not seen as the focus, I still can't help but feel that the rest of the film wasn't exciting enough to make it any good. Godzilla on the other hand, was truly awesome, the time that he was in the film was fantastic and I really just wanted more. He fulfilled his purpose, and for that, he was a successful design.

This then led me on to making an example of a quote from the film Monster's University. My point was that you can replace the word scary with any other sort of purpose; be it funny; cute; or whatever, and it still applies. A creature needs to be fit for purpose, and so, if a creature isn't fit for purpose, what's the point in the creature? This is what I plan to base my project on, and something which I shall come back later to discuss.

I also decided to put forth a little niggle I've had with the recent portrayal of dragons within media and make a point out of it. Now, for those not in the know, dragons bear four limbs and two wings, where as wyverns bear two limbs and two wings, then there are wyrms etc, but I'm not getting into all that just now.

 My point is, that so many films and games have represented their 'dragons' as wyverns. Even when adapted from books, like Harry Potter and The Hobbit, which specifically say 'dragons', they seem to insist on designing them as wyverns instead. This doesn't stop their designs being really awesome, especially the dragons from Reign of Fire (pictured top right), which is one of my favourite films, but it always brings me out of the immersion for my mind to have a little grumble. My thought is however, is this something to do with limitations? Is it because six limbs is too much to handle? Or is it to help the dragons fulfil their purpose, for example, Smaug from the Hobbit looks very serpentine, intelligent and cruel, where as with 4 legs he might have looked ponderous. Interestingly, I looked up an article about the design decision of Smaug, as I had noticed that from part 1 of the films, to part 2, his design had changed. In the original screening of part 1 (the extended version fixes this 'error'), Smaug is clearly represented with four limbs and two wings as he pounds through the Dwarven fortress of Erebor; however in part 2 of the series, he has been changed to feature only two limbs and two wings.

Here is the article which explains the design change decision:
http://www.mtv.com/news/1719502/smaug-hobbit-fx-explained/

To conclude the article, it basically states that it was due to the motion capture used on the actor Benedict Cumberbatch who played Smaug, that meant the design had to be changed. Of course, this is because Mr Cumberbatch does not have six limbs, a very real and very clear limitation. Whether motion capture was really needed for this is another matter, but it still makes the point that as a creature designer I may have to work to restrictions and limitations, based on how my designs will be taken forward.

I then proceeded to show off the reference studies I had done from the books I had got, just as an example of the sort of thing I would be doing all year pretty much.

I then went on to show off some creature designs that I had been working on. Using the book 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them' by J.K.Rowling (which is essentially an encyclopedia of all the creatures from the world of Harry Potter, with only the occasional crude doodle to go beside each description), a took a number of the creature descriptions within and sketched out my own versions of them, ignoring any visual representations that I had seen before, e.g. the ones from the films. It was a great exercise and I really like the idea of continuing this on, advancing on concepts and refining them with more solid anatomy to really bring them to life. I'm especially keen on the bird-like creatures: the Augurey and Fwooper; as well as a couple of the dragons; namely the Norwegian Ridgeback, Peruvian Vipertooth and Swedish Shortsnout.

The final slide of my presentation just gave a few examples of the sorts of things I would be continuing to work on.

From my presentation, I was informed I should start to refine my project and hone it to something more focused. With this in mind, I have decided to create a sort of mini project proposal which I can use to refer to when I am feeling lost.

I seek to explore the appeal of creatures to their audience and how their purpose defines their design. This will involve being able to understand any given creature's purpose and evaluating its success through general opinion (questionnaires aimed at a variety of people). Personal opinion may be a part of this, though it should not be defining. A decent knowledge of animal and avian anatomy will help to provide realistic creature designs, however it shall also be explored as to how far anatomy can be pushed/altered before a creature design becomes unbelievable.
Furthermore, I would like to take creatures from literature and create designs for them, taking into account, but not copying any existing interpretations, whilst also aiming to choose those that exist only in written form.
The end product of this project will be a portfolio of anatomy drawings and creature designs that will be arranged into an art book.

As the slide of the creature designs from the Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them book is rather small, here are the original versions: