TARANTULA info in '50s Horror and Sci-Fi Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

TARANTULA info

Author	Comment
Rick		#61	[-]
Jun 14 11 2:26 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I wish I could give TARANTULA that alibi, Jack, but I've never seen it on video, only on TV broadcasts. The first was a local showing in the early-mid '60s, the most recent was the Zacherley Halloween show of a few years back. And, yes, I have no doubt that if I'd seen it in the theatre when I was a kid, I'd probably give those effects a lot more leeway.
HalLane		#62	[-]
Jun 14 11 3:51 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Rick wrote: And, yes, I have no doubt that if I'd seen it in the theatre when I was a kid, I'd probably give those effects a lot more leeway. I'd be dirtying my dungarees!
Monsterpal		#63	[-]
Jun 14 11 5:55 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	horrorfilmx wrote: Monsterpal wrote: In a conversation with the late Gene Warren Sr many years ago, I mentioned how much I like KRONOS and Mr. Warren expressed surprised, saying he didn't care for the film and that he thought some of the best effects he worked on in that period were in TARANTULA. It was my turn to be surprised, because I didn't even know he had worked on TARANTULA, for which he received no credit. The big hairy mock-up maybe? I'd be very curious to learn the extent of his participation. I wish I'd asked him more about that, but that's all I remember of what he said about TARANTULA.
delgadosaur		#64	[-]
Jun 15 11 12:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, not when a tarantula arm plants its foot on clean air instead of the background plate's mountainside. I understand budgetary stuff, but both studio and production need to look at a shots like that and fix them before the picture is released, in my opinion. Last Edited By: delgadosaur Jun 16 11 11:40 AM. Edited 1 times.
Bill Warren		#65	[-]
Jul 24 11 4:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I imagine this has been brought up elsewhere on CHFB, but in Googling around, it looks to me like the big spider prop seen in MESA OF LOST WOMEN is the same as that used in the ads for TARANTULA (and briefly in the film itself). The heads may be different.
Rakshasa		#66	[-]
Jul 24 11 5:28 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Uploaded with ImageShack.us Links To All The Classic Monster Stills I've Posted: http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/30758
Bill Warren		#67	[-]
Jul 24 11 5:59 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That's the one. Now where's the TARANTULA still of the model just standing there on what looks like a linoleum floor?
CapnDunsel		#68	[-]
Jul 24 11 6:35 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	delgadosaur wrote: Well, not when a tarantula arm plants its foot on clean air instead of the background plate's mountainside. I understand budgetary stuff, but both studio and production need to look at a shots like that and fix them before the picture is released, in my opinion. I was impressed with some of the better scenes where I think you even see the spider's shadow (maybe I'm totally misremembering). Back to Rod's first post, I wondered if his reference to "Jack Hill" was actually a secretive message about the director. If you sound it out, it suggests jackal. Give him a PhD and it's Dr Jekyll.
rvoyttbots		#69	[-]
Jul 24 11 9:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don`t ever remember seeing that process shot goof of the Tarantula walking out onto the sky until the recent TCM showing in June. I don`t care. One of my favorite 50s monster films.
Rakshasa		#70	[-]
Jul 24 11 11:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bill Warren wrote: That's the one. Now where's the TARANTULA still of the model just standing there on what looks like a linoleum floor? OK, here are both back-to-back. Sure looks like the same critter with a different head to me... Uploaded with ImageShack.us Uploaded with ImageShack.us Links To All The Classic Monster Stills I've Posted: http://monsterkidclassichorrorforum.yuku.com/topic/30758
Bill Warren		#71	[-]
Jul 25 11 1:20 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Thanks. The head is different but the legs are the same or very similar. I gotta wonder if U-I built their own goofy-looking spider or bought that one from the makers of MESA OF LOST WOMEN (OF ZARPA).
delgadosaur		#72	[-]
Jul 25 11 2:52 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Okay, all seriousness aside, that's an awesome photo.
Babetician		#73	[-]
Jul 31 11 12:40 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Looks like they might have used the same model (the legs seem to match) but revamped the head, which is much better, with very sophisticated hair work and better eyes. Looks nothing like a tarantula. The legs are too long, for one thing.
DougGorius		#74	[-]
Jun 27 12 4:01 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Do we know TARANTULA's correct aspect ratio? I know this was made and released during a time of transition where the aspect ratio intended by the DP, the AR enforced by the studio, and the AR of a flat film's screening at any given theater probably all differed, but this film seems especially ambiguous. For one, there are MASSIVE amounts of head room, which could suggest an AR of something like 2.00:1. When I mat it to that ratio it looks good but, hell, there is still some head room to spare on occasion, and if I offset the frame any lower, the top of some credit blocks get cut off (of course, this could be a case of Universal zooming in select portions of the film for the DVD, which we know they have done before on open-matte releases). If anybody could present documentation on how cinematographer George Robinson or U-I intended the film to be framed, I would appreciate it. Last Edited By: DougGorius Jun 27 12 6:36 PM. Edited 2 times.
horrorfilmx		#75	[-]
Jun 27 12 7:03 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Babetician wrote: Looks like they might have used the same model (the legs seem to match) but revamped the head, which is much better, with very sophisticated hair work and better eyes. Looks nothing like a tarantula. The legs are too long, for one thing. Looks like the same head, different angle.
TServo4		#76	[-]
Jun 30 12 7:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	DougGorius wrote: Do we know TARANTULA's correct aspect ratio? I know this was made and released during a time of transition where the aspect ratio intended by the DP, the AR enforced by the studio, and the AR of a flat film's screening at any given theater probably all differed, but this film seems especially ambiguous. For one, there are MASSIVE amounts of head room, which could suggest an AR of something like 2.00:1. When I mat it to that ratio it looks good but, hell, there is still some head room to spare on occasion, and if I offset the frame any lower, the top of some credit blocks get cut off (of course, this could be a case of Universal zooming in select portions of the film for the DVD, which we know they have done before on open-matte releases). If anybody could present documentation on how cinematographer George Robinson or U-I intended the film to be framed, I would appreciate it. TARANTULA was photographed at an aspect ratio of 2-1. Such was Universal's policy since the fall of 1953, so that no matter what size screen it was shown, it would be shown correctly. J. Theakston Capitol Theatre, Rome, NY
melody1985	tarantula had a better spider effect the sifi.s movinethaa	#77	[-]
Jul 1 12 4:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	thats for darn sure i like the 50.s spider much to fake looking now
SteveZodiak		#78	[-]
Jan 7 13 5:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	TCM again. If you see a pool of unidentified white fluid around skeletal remains, the definitve field test is first sniff it, then taste it. Why do I have to waste my time outwitting morons?
DonM435		#79	[-]
Jan 8 13 10:04 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	SteveZodiak wrote: TCM again. If you see a pool of unidentified white fluid around skeletal remains, the definitve field test is first sniff it, then taste it. "It's spider venom, all right! Glad we didn't step in it!"
Lieutenant Faris	TARANTULA (1955)	#80	[-]
Jan 9 13 12:22 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If this has been mentioned before, please forgive me. Near the beginning of the film Prof. Deemer (Leo G. Carroll) is in his lab and fills a hypodermic syringe with his radioactive "nutrient" in order to inject one of his enlarged test animals. In the master shot, it can clearly be seen that Deemer is holding a full syringe with the plunger fully extended. When he picks up a clipboard at the animal cages to record the dosage, there is an insert shot of his hands holding both the clipboard and the hypodermic syringe he had just filled. In the shot, the syringe is clearly empty with the plunger fully depressed. We never see him inject a test animal, and moments later the deformed "Paul Lund" attacks him, grabs the obviously full syringe and injects the unconscious Deemer. It amazes me that the flaw with the hypodermic syringe was not noticed and fixed. I suppose that, possibly, the insert shots of Deemer's hands holding the clipboard and the empty syringe were done long after the scene with Leo G. Carroll had been filmed and the hands shown were not even his. All of this does not diminish TARANTULA at all for me. I have loved the film since I first saw it in 1955 --- it's just a moment that always jumps out at me.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

TARANTULA info