Why couldn't the cinematic version of Smaug look like the way Tolkien both drew and wrote him? That is to say, look like a classic dragon instead of an amalgamation of many real-life animals created to satisfy this strange obsession over realism?
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
Smaug looks very much the classic dragon, IMHO, except for being 4-limbed instead of 6-limbed (including the wings) and his excessive size. You want to talk about odd-looking dragons then I cite Draco (Dragonheart), Falkor (The NeverEnding Story), and the 'dragons' in Willow.
"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella
Draco's face is somewhat off, but his morphology is otherwise spot-on.
The author of The NeverEnding Story wasn't trying to model Falkor after conventional dragons, though. Many things bucked the trend in that movie. A zebra-like centaur and vampire-like wolf come to mind.
Sorry...I simply read/heard too much about how the original Smaug (and, by extension, the ur-example of Western dragons) was not "realistic" enough, when it came to how the cinematic version of this terrible beast was designed from the ground up.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
I agree, movie-Smaug is so massive it's impossible to believe he can fly, and is ugly and dull-colored besides. A sleeker, brighter, more agile, shinier dragon would have looked better, and would have helped us suspend disbelief.
Honestly, none of the design decisions in these movies worked, the dwarves looked terrible from the get-go and things just went downhill as the movies went along. (Edit: with the exception of Laketown.)
“Seventy-seven courses and a regicide, never a wedding like it!
I agree, movie-Smaug is so massive it's impossible to believe he can fly, and is ugly and dull-colored besides. A sleeker, brighter, more agile, shinier dragon would have looked better, and would have helped us suspend disbelief.