[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: In Defense of Chas.R.Knight.
> Ed Summers has made available to us here on the list a lengthy blurb about a
> new Imax film called,_T.rex:Back to the Cretaceous_. Larry Dunn has made some
> perceptive comments on this film which you have probably read. Having observed
> several frames from this film at Ed's website, I am absolutely enfuriated by
> the audacity of the film-maker's engendering the name of Charles Knight as a
> character in their film.
> Knight looked for beauty in line and form and would accept nothing less in
> his pursuit of the images of his prehistoric models. The cheesy, goggled-eyed
> monsters, stooped and inaccurate as shown in these frames would have greatly
> offended Knight.
> The huge problem with computer generated images is that you can actually
> make a piece of crap come to life. But don't you dare put a real artist's
> signature on it! Dan Varner.
I think I missed the original review of the film, so if I could get a link to
above mentioned site...?
How could the film makers have used Knight's name in the first place? I can't
believe that his estate would have allowed it, not when his own art was
I've been a fan of Knight's since I was a small kid, and would like to think of
him as a main reason for my lasting love for not only Dinosaurs, but all extinct
animals. His work is indeed beautiful, and while perhaps not all of it is
scientifically accurate in the eyes of today (though, when painted, his Dinos
indeed the most accurate according to the current knowledge and theories), I
believe it remains a lasting testament to the endeavours of early paleontology
only to found a science, but to make it into something that the public can
understand and enjoy.
John M. Dollan
Montana State University -- Northern
"To make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe...."