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

Re: Kong/Tyrannosaur

RESPONSE: in going through the pre-production cost
estimates for the puppet constructions, one can find
no evidence of a third sauropod puppet, there being
the full-body puppet used as it walks on land and
corners the sailor, and the puppet used in the lagoon.
Marcel Delgado, for various four-legged puppets,
refurbished them for use, adding different heads and
so on to create a different creature when
necessary.For example, Mr Delgado had two Kong puppets
(no more than this), used interchangably when one
needed repairs (this does not include the shamefully
inept, ineffective life-size model of the head).
Despite the wishful thinking, and media hungry byters,
a man in a suit was not used for either the Empire
State Building sequence, nor when the elevated train
was attacked. There was only one stegosaur puppet,
used time-and-again during pre-production. As far as
the pterosaur is concerned, there was the small
puppet, then the legs and feet model used for
close-ups of Ms Wray being airlifted. The first
styracosaur used in pre-production was not the same
puppet used in the unmentionable "sequel" (on which
OBie did virtually no work, other than posing for a
photograph). I "hammer" at no-one, working only with
source material (for CREATION: storyboards, scripts,
contracts, cost outlines, scraps of footage; for 1933:
Wallace/Creelman/Rose scripts [Cooper himself never
wrote a word], storyboards, the complete M.C. Cooper
papers at BYU [letters, telegrams, RKO memoranda,
For these messages, I am speaking in broad terms vs.
reprinting parts of chapters where I elucidate all of
the data. Unless I am mistaken, Teratornis, being a
flying dinosaur, is a theropod, and I should have
said, in my general observations, that OBie was
limited to one large bipedal theropod and a flying
theropod. Thus, the quibbling is tiresome.
My hope, indeed, is that Fran Walsh/Peter Jackson will
take their script (with necessary revisions they deem
applicable [when I received the script from in 1996, I
believed it to be an excellent script in toto]), and
not use the amateurish "effects" one has seen in
recent years in Asian-inspired projects. I have always
hoped they would approach Phil Tippett, and, in turn,
re-create the 1991-1993 Tippett/ILM team which made
the CGI breakthroughs possible. To be sure, Mr
Crichton's original 1991 script remains unfilmed, and,
someday, the 1993 Kiddie film should be re-made with
the dignity (and, yes, sense-of-wonder) lacking in the
first version, with actants who are not being overly
"cute" for designers of "action toys" given English
language sentences which are coherent and accurate.
Alan Grant, in both and film, is surprisingly ignorant
of his own field, a manic-impressive riding his
delusions on a psyche-path.
One final thought: I believe the Walsh/Jackson vision,
if it is filmed (he has said recently he has other
projects to be done), will have the same adherence to
integrity and intelligence he brought to the Tolkien
films (has anyone noticed how he vision of "fantasy"
--reality in un-real paradigms -- parallels that of
John W. Campbell's UNKNOWN pulp magazine?). Tolkien's
linguistic/mythological worlds were, in a sense,
"virtual" mythology, i.e., creating a world with a
historical "soul", so to speak, a believability
predicated upon possibility (fractalizations). From
1925-1933, OBie/Delgado/Spivack (with Max Steiner, who
enthusiastically embraced the vision when he joined
the project in 1932), created a dinosaur island at 12S
78E in the Indian Ocean (easily reachable, if it had
been there, by Alfred Russel Wallace during his
sojourns in the Malay Archipelago), with Orville
Goldner et al. adding life. The fact the 1933 film is
marred (as was the 1925 extravaganza, with Jules
Cowles in "blackface"  espousing dialogue for the
"entertainment" of white audiences) with racialism
(and the undercurrents of militaristic
anti-intellectualism reaching their apex when a
captured animal -- how they fed the primate from the
Indian Ocean to Manhattan is a riddle, is it not? --
is murdered by Navy aeroplanes) cannot be avoided. For
all the spectacular sense-of-wonder of the Skull
Island sequences (far shorter than OBie dreamed of),
the fact remains the opening/closing sequences are
inundated with class-based caricaturizations, the Ann
Darrow character (an ill-disguised quasi-hooker, so to
speak) "saved" by "men" who never "go soft". The
"beauty" and the "beast" theme (Philip Jose Farmer,
years ago, had a rather humorous extrapolation of the
bestiality undercurrents) was, to be sure, an idea
which irritates one's gag reflex, even in 2002. One
relishes the dinosaurs, the pterosaur, the elasmosaur,
the breath-taking glass-paintings and Dore jungles of
a "lost world"...but one must contextualize the
purpose of the film, and its all-too-obvious homages,
amidst elevator trains and suffocating poverty in
Manhattan,  to D.W. Griffith's sheet-enveloped
--- Danvarner@aol.com wrote:
>        Stephan Pickering writes:
>  << Even with
> > financial constraints, OBie, in the end, was
> limited
> > to one theropod, one sauropod (two different
> puppets), <snip> >>
>        By my reckoning there were three different
> brontosaur puppets. An 
> articulated full-body animation model, a close-up
> head-and-neck animation 
> model, and a mechanical (non-animation model) for
> the aquatic sequences. The 
> later two also appeared in "The Son of Kong" (the
> head-and -neck animation 
> model being redecorated as a sea serpent).
> << > a pterosaur, an elasmosaur, a stegosaur, a
> teratorn
> > (the flying dinosaur which fled the dead
> tyrannosaur
> > when Jack Driscoll arrived), an aetosaur (oddly
> > enough, to save time, the animal lacks hindlegs as
> it
> > climbs up the vine), the spider and its strange
> > neighbours in the ravine. The CREATION
> triceratopsians
> > were used briefly, then abandoned in favour of a
> > styracosaur, and this was refurbished into an
> > Arsinotherium. >>
>        The Pteranodon and the Stegosaurus both were
> represented by two 
> animation models each, unless I'm mistaken (could
> happen). Would not the 
> "teratorn" be considered a second theropod as well?
> By stating that the 
> Styracosaurus was "refurbished into an
> Arsinotherium", I hope it is not being 
> suggested that the animation model was being
> "refurbished" as the 
> Styracosaurus appears in "The Son of Kong".
>        It seems to me that if one decides to hammer
> away at others for 
> inaccuracy (even if they are no longer around to
> defend themselves), one 
> should be extremely careful and have all one's
> duck/theropods in a row. DV 

Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!