![]() I wrote all of this down so you know I understand quite a bit of math and physics, but it comes all down to this:Įssentially, we're adding super-useless comments to Wowhead just because someone probably was typing too fast in order to think about DPS per second, and in fact, his purged comment about scary fury warriors was more informing than ours. If anyone is just half into this and would write things down, he'd know it's Dps/s second/second second^-2. You are the only one who's assuming -"second per second" is "second times second" which is "second^2". Damage per second per second is possible but it has no use in any way, shape or form. Absolutely confusing.įirst of all, you're combining written text with speaking math only to leave some viewers in awe. If you had seconds times seconds, that's sec^2 - but dps/s is sec^-2, and thus you're doing damage over a negatively squared period of time. However, if you could do damage per second per second, it'd be sec^-2. I’m not all too sure a Sand Wraith will ever appear in the shows, but who knows? Could be fun.Damage per second per second? In acceleration sciences, the concept of seconds squared is acceptable, but it's a crazy thing to imagine - we've squared measurements of distance, but I can't recall that a human being has ever squared a measurement of time and lived to tell about it. So I still believe that there is no moment that the Sand Wraith appears in any of the canonical materials for HTTYD outside of the two video games Rise of Berk and School of Dragons. It’s not the same as actually having a Sand Wraith appear in the storyline. The movie credits show a lot of concept art and development, including artwork of dragons that don’t appear in the final film. It seems like the time gap further points to the fact this artwork is a Night Fury.Įven in regard to the darkness behind the eyes, it just happens to be that’s just how Dean DeBlois draws Night Furies.Įven if this had been a Sand Wraith (it’s not), the credits of a movie are a little different than actually being introduced within the show or movies themselves. Rise of Berk was released in 2014, but the first movie was released in 2010. There’s the added fact that the Sand Wraith was not introduced until the game Rise of Berk. The artwork actually is much closer to the design of a Night Fury. The head plates also seem to be a little different, a little sharper, than what we see in the art (this could just be a product of limited graphics though). The dragon has very sharp spines on both the front of the wings and the back, whereas the concept art you talked about at 1:29:21 does not have these spines. Here is a picture of a Sand Wraith, as shown from here. And while it is true that this drawing has a black mark on the eyes, the artwork actually diverges from the design of a Sand Wraith in other respects. The art team did this intentionally for lighting and shading purposes, as explained in “The Art of How to Train your Dragon.” The fact that the artwork at 1:29:21 shows a dragon with some spots in many ways supports the idea that this is a Night Fury. ![]() It’d make no sense to pair Hiccup’s name with a Sand Wraith.īeyond that, Toothless himself has spots on his skin. ![]() What we see here is a very close sketch depicting a Night Fury before the Night Fury was animated.Ĭontextually, it only makes sense that when we’re listing Hiccup’s name in the credits, we would have a drawing of a Night Fury next to him. Concept art tends not to be exactly like the final animated models, but still get very close to what becomes animated. XD I hope it’s okay if I go through and explain how visually we can tell this is a Night Fury. I understand you might not have seen the art book, so that’s okay. That page is titled “Toothless: The Night Fury.” In “The Art of How to Train Your Dragon” book, we see this very picture of a Night Fury drawn on p. ![]() I can see why you would call this a Sand Wraith, but we can learn that this art actually is conclusive concept art for Toothless. I fully believe the picture to which you’re referring at 1:29:21 is a Night Fury. That would have been really cool if so! Unfortunately, I think I’m going to disagree with your assessment, friend. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |