RE: Follow-up: the truth about killer dinosaurs

[Christian Darkin <christian@darkin.demon.co.uk>]

Hi,
To me, it seemed that they weren't performing experiments, they were
creating dramatic demonstrations of things which had already been
established (or at least experiments with which the programme makers
were siding), and in that they succeeded.

Yes, they did say things like "this is the first time we can be sure
that..." when completing their tests, when it was very clear that
although Bill Oddie (presenter) might not have known the results, the
evidence was already out there, and the demonstrations were planned to
show that.

However, I remember Richard Feynman at a press conference about the
Challenger shuttle disaster taking out a rubber "O" ring and dunking it
in his ice-water to "Prove" that it became brittle when exposed to cold
weather.  It wasn't supposed to be a scientific experiment, but it was a
demonstration that got the truth across to the public in a way that a
hundred dry documentaries couldn't have.


As for the Trex in this show being less or more lifelike than the WWD
one - the WWD modelling and texturing was a lot more considered and
(clearly) more expensive, and the secondary animation in WWD was great
(i.e. flesh wobbled, eyes moved, and the body looked generally heavier).
However, this new Trex did much more in the way of convincing action -
WWD found it very difficult to recreate the characters coming into
contact with each other, and most of the time the WWD Trex did little
more than walk about, snapping its jaws.  


And Ok, they took the mechanical Trex skull to a family car, but let's
face it:  Who wouldn't.

Christian Darkin


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu] On Behalf
Of John Hunt
Sent: 30 August 2005 09:38
To: luisrey@ndirect.co.uk; mike@miketaylor.org.uk
Cc: '-Dinosaur Mailing List-'
Subject: RE: Follow-up: the truth about killer dinosaurs

Agree with Luis on the skull reconstructions, why was the T. rex skull
not
modelled in the same resin?  If the resin could not withstand the bite
forces then nor could the skull if you use the same argument as applied
to
the triceratops skull!

Not sure why Luis was thankful the animation was not from WWD.  It
really
needs a makeover to keep up with the latest finds - mainly adding
feathers,
but the WWD T. rex was much more lifelike than the new one, and had also
not
just been to the dentist!

I found the ceratopsian gait unconvincing in both.

John Hunt

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dinosaur@usc.edu [mailto:owner-dinosaur@usc.edu] On Behalf
Of
Luis Rey
Sent: 30 August 2005 01:02
To: mike@miketaylor.org.uk
Cc: -Dinosaur Mailing List-
Subject: Follow-up: the truth about killer dinosaurs

I'm afraid things got a little out of hand... but yes the animation  
was (thankfully NOT from WWD).
Although I enjoyed the show for what was worth I was talking today  
with John Hutchinson (one of the main protagonists) and we found out  
some inconsistencies that were really unfortunate.
First of all the stride of T. rex was enormously long despite John  
being an adviser concerning T. rex locomotion (the animation followed  
his research rather very little) . The thighs rotation implied that  
the femur's range of oscillation was excessive ( if we consider the  
muscular attachments).

Second (and most serious of all)... why was the mechanical  
reconstruction of the T. rex skull done in steel while the same of  
Triceratops was resin?
The T. rex skull "demonstration" was breaking and munching a dripping- 
blood bone and a pig carcass (and on top of everything, munching a  
car! Done without a problem by the steel frame...) while the  
Triceratops demo was a 15  mile per hour full  charge on a tough- 
hide,  artificial T. rex belly.
The  supraorbital horns were covered in a hard material (that  
sharpened them and added resistance) while the nose horn was blunt  
and left as the rest of the resin skull (that is without covering).  
Needless to say the  frontal horns perforated the "belly" without  
problem but  the snout  couldn't withstand the impact and broke off  
in spectacular fashion... thus "proving" that Triceratops couldn't  
charge at full speed!
Not only the full speed charge of the dummy  ignored the flexibility  
of the muscles and articulation of a real animal, it was unfairly  
unbalanced too!

It seems that those experiments were pretended more like a gimmick  
without participation of any scientist... so that may have been the  
reason (or shall I say the "non reason").

In any case, there were some, well done real dramatic moments like   
the  the goring of T. rex by Triceratops (really hurt!) and the fight  
of the animals looked realistic too, using the latest evidence.  The  
steel T. rex bites of the pig carcass were definitively shocking!

Flawed fun, but fun nevertheless. Much better than many other shows I  
have seen. Looking forward to see next week's Velociraptor chapter,


On 29 Aug 2005, at 13:44, Mike Taylor wrote:

>> Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 08:56:14 +0100
>> From: John Hunt <john.bass@ntlworld.com>
>>
>> The BBC's latest reuse of Walking With Dinosaurs footage airs
>> tonight at 20.30 on BBC1 for those on the right side of the pond.
>>
>
> For what it's worth (I watched the first few minutes to check the
> video was getting the right thing, and will watch it all with the boys
> this evening) the CGI footage is not from _WWD_.
>
> Although it will look strangely familiar to lovers of _When Dinosaurs
> Roamed America_ ...
>
> Still, who cares?  They -- finally -- have a _T. rex_ fighting a
> _Triceratops_.  Which is what it's all about, right?
>
> And in other news --
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 23:51:12 +0100 (BST)
>> From: Aidan Karley <aidan_karley@yahoo.co.uk>
>>
>>     What's really puzzling me now (consequent on one of those
>> horrible "spend more to save on postage" deals), is how on earth a
>> search from books by `Kenneth Carpenter` returned
>> "6.     The Official "Godzilla" Compendium: A 40 Year Retrospective
>> ~J. D. Lees, et al
>> Random House USA Inc"
>>
>
> That would be because of --
>
>     Carpenter, K.  1998.  A dinosaur paleontologist's view of
>     Godzilla.  In Lees, J. D. & Cerasini, M. (eds) The Official
>     Godzilla Compendium. Random House (New York),
>     pp. 102-106. [T4]
>
> And then there is also --
>
>     Christiansen, Per (2000): Godzilla from a zoological
>     perspective.  Mathematical Geology 32 (2): 231-245.
>
>  _/|_      
> ___________________________________________________________________
> /o ) \/  Mike Taylor  <mike@miketaylor.org.uk>  http:// 
> www.miketaylor.org.uk
> )_v__/\  "And what if none of their souls were saved?  They went to
>      their maker impeccably shaved" -- Steven Sondheim, "The Ballad
>      of Sweeney Todd"
>
>

Luis Rey

Visit my website
http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~luisrey