[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Concerning the Disney dinosaur movie and Walking with Dinosaurs, I'm a
little tired of hearing excuses of how difficult feathers or hair are to
treat in computer animation. If animators want to deal with real
animals, depicting small theropods without feathers or dinofuzz is (at
this time) more or less the same as depicting bald lions or naked
eagles... if they tried to animate bears or ground birds why would be
the excuse then? Lack of time and budget? Why the 'lemurs' in the Disney
weren't bald too? By this assumption, we would NEVER see a complete
animated movie with birds or mammals as stars.
I think the real reason is that dinosaurs for public consumption still
have to be seen as the tradition has been painting them through all
these years: scaly and gray (most of the time). Some of us have been
adamantly pushing the coloured dinos (or at least the 'skin patterned')
concept (as I did when I worked at the beginning for the Walking With
Dinosaurs thing) and even that has been proved extremely difficult.
Exhibiting 'new' dinosauria art still got me some incredulous comments
at the SVPCA just a few weeks ago: "I don't know what you are doing or
if what you are painting is based on real animals, but they look so
incredible that I hope they might have been real" said someone.
And regarding Archaeoraptor... well the thing is real, only that is not
just one animal but at least two. It is a bad case of multiple
personality I guess...there are dozens of those dromaeosaur feathered
tails awaiting in China to be described and assigned to specimens.
Science is constantly proving to be stranger and more complex than
Visit my website on http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey