[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Kong Tyrannosaurus

RESPONSE: Dan, I am neither confused, nor afflicted
with ocular dysfunction. The 1933 tyrannosaur was
deliberately made so that it lacked the obviously
visible teeth on known tyrannosaur skulls; and, as
Marcel Delgado told me (as we looked at his
photographs)they were made shorter, thinner, when
compared to the AMNH skull he had stills of (sent by
Barnum Brown). During the course of the entrance into
the glade, e.g., the teeth are seen, but compare this,
e.g., with Phil Tippett's tyrannosaur as it comes
through the deactivated security fence. The
differences are stunningly obvious.I have the entire
1933 film on VHS (different version), laser disc, and
have an excellent reel-to-reel "super 8" print which I
have, using modern equipment,  examined carefully
frame-by-frame (the pegs-in-feet for the animation
tables is not news to me, Dan). The 1932 test-reel
tyrannosaur (the only segment of the lost test-reel to
survive into the final film, but which OBie wanted to
refilm with a refurbished theropod [back more
horizontal, tail off the ground, etc.])has "teeth",
but they are, as I have repeated stressed, NOT
accurate. Apart from the impossibly bipedal primate,
height/shape shifting throughout the film (cf. John
Hutchinson's work on tyrannosaur body mass for a cue
as to what I am alluding), an accurately constructed
tyrannosaur puppet of AMNH 5027 would precipitate the
realization that such a theropod, with 12+ inch teeth
(the film animal was ca. twice as big as AMNH 5027)and
a "nut-cracker"-like bite, would have have severed the
primate's arm off, and the kick, similarly, would have
resulted in disembowelment.
OBie/Delago's artwork, regardless of the inaccuracies,
is to be sure an undeniable part of dinosaurology
iconography. Sorry, Dan, but you'll have to try again.
--- Danvarner@aol.com wrote:
>              Sorry folks, Old Business. Mr.
> Pickering wrote (9/12/02):
> << Marcel Delgado gave me aphotograph of the
> theropod puppet atop a table 
> coveredwith a sheet of butcher paper (I have the
> subsequentphotograph of the 
> next frame in the film roll), tryingto bite the back
> of the styracosaur. In 
> bothphotographs, the teeth are barely visible vs.
> thestartlingly protruding 
> teeth of every tyrannosaurskull known (cf. Greg
> Paul's Scientific American 
> book,page 270). >>
>        I've seen one of these photographs, have a
> copy around here somewhere. 
> More important here, though, is examination of the
> actual film. Delgado's 
> model, based loosely on Knight's c.1905 AMNH
> restoration, has a full ( but 
> not necessarily accurate) complement of teeth. I
> invite anyone with video 
> equipment to look at the initial scene of the
> Tyrannosaurus model entering 
> the glade or the later scene when the tree
> containing Fay Wray is toppled by 
> the battling behemoths. If you can go through them
> frame-by-frame, you will 
> be rewarded with ample rex dental apparatus. I
> believe that Mr. Pickering is 
> being confused by the fact that the Kong
> Tyrannosaurus model was equipped 
> with Bakkerian "lips" rigged by Delgado in order for
> the beast to snarl ( a 
> favorite idiosyncrasy of Willis O'Brien ). The model
> also shows a remarkably 
> GSP orientation of the pubis and rib-cage. At any
> rate, if one goes through 
> the immortal sequence frame by frame, you are
> rewarded with not only 
> tyrannosaur teeth but also braces and views of holes
> in the soles of feet 
> used for tie-downs to hold the models steady.
> Remarkable frames are also 
> observable that would be missed at normal film
> speed. It was wonderful 
> artwork by all concerned. 
>        Also it should be noted here that Fay Wray
> celebrated her 95th 
> birthday last week. "Malem ma pakeno!" DV

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines