[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Follow-up: the truth about killer dinosaurs
Well, I know how designing a dino can go wrong. The T.rex from WWD
looks like the worst case of design by committee I've ever seen. Any
artist can tell you that there is extra pressure when creating
everyones favourite dinosaur. The expectation of what our worst
fears look like is a hard one to capture. Even though it is an
animal, and not a monster, people in entertainment look to it as 'the
money-maker'. Therefore, the money people all have a say...as does
the producers ex-wife's brother in law's goldfish.
After a while it all falls apart. On Disney's Dinosaur the
carnotaur (notice i did not call it a carnotaurus?) would have been
more silly if myself and a few others didn't create one model for the
money people to look at one slightly different one for those of us
No one cared about the background dinosaurs like the styracosaurus
and pachycelphalosaurs, so they turned out alright!
What I've found is that designing the girl and the monster in any
movie are the hardest assignments. We all have a different version
of what scares us, and what attracts us.
One of our directors on Dinosaur wanted the 'raptors' to be super
beefy and muscular. He himself was muscular and someone who was
stronger than he was scary to him. To me I thought a skinny raptor
was scary because starving desperate people must scare me.
In my own opinion on movie dinosaurs, I thought the Jurassic Park
T.rex was really well designed. It was caricatured enough to be a
monster and an animal. Thanks Mike Trcic!!!
On Aug 30, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Luis Rey wrote:
On 30 Aug 2005, at 09:38, John Hunt wrote:
Not sure why Luis was thankful the animation was not from WWD. It
needs a makeover to keep up with the latest finds - mainly adding
but the WWD T. rex was much more lifelike than the new one, and
had also not
just been to the dentist!
Can't agree, I'm afraid. First I would always advocate diversity
and keep away from cliches (and WWD could become a cliche very
easily) so any new reconstruction seen from a different artistic
point of view is almost always refreshing (unless it is deadly
wrong, and despite the long strides, wide skull and some minor
defects in the animation, the T.rex from "The Truth of the Killer
Dinosaurs" looked pretty decent to me).
Secondly, It has always been difficult to me to understand how -
after so many good specimens and perfect, completely restored
Tyrannosaurus skulls and anatomical treaties- a professional can
still get it wrong. And that is exactly what they did in Walking
With Dinosaurs: get the back of the skull (including the area of
the temporal fenestrae and the muscular attachments of the lower
jaw to the skull) completely >wrong<. The T. rex there is a
chimera: the proportions are not quite right and the attachment of
the skull to the neck looks also completely artificial.
To me, the general look of the WWD T.rex is more like a
sophisticated, glorified version of one of the vilest T.rex puppets
ever to star in a publication (namely "Tyrannosaurus, On The Trail
Of The Ferocious Meat-Eating Dinosaur", Dorling Kindersley 1992).
The WWD team took a while to get their dinosaurs completely
right... the Allosaurus from "Ballad of Big Al" was pretty decent
Visit my website