[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Follow-up: the truth about killer dinosaurs
Billie Oddie was the presenter?
that explains everything
*goes off singing "Gooodies goody goody yum yum"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Darkin" <christian@darkin.demon.co.uk>
To: "'-Dinosaur Mailing List-'" <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: Follow-up: the truth about killer dinosaurs
> 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
>