|
Post by scousette on Nov 14, 2011 18:11:42 GMT -5
The Meet the Beatles cover shows you why there is such a variance in the size of John, George and Paul's heads--they were photographed different distances from the camera. I have known that for a long time, but the With the Beatles (an annoying title) with the background all black with no variations of light does not show them in context. It looks like Paul has this little peanut head. So to me there is a huge difference between the two. For that reason, With the Beatles gets my vote to be eliminated. This reminds me of the discussion about relative heights of the three tallest Beatles. Conventional wisdom (which is often not so wise) says that they were all the same height--around 5'11" or so. We know from many photos that this is not the case. They always point out that the "new" Paul was taller than John and George. The truth is that John and George stopped wearing Beatle boots around 1966. Paul had always intermittantly wore the boots and stopped doing so in 1964 for the most part. Even in the 1963 photo on the back of Meet the Beatles Paul is th only one not wearing boots. The best way to see their true height is the Sgt. Pepper photos. There they are all have the same type of shoes on --they were part of the Sgt. Pepper outfit. Conclusion the two inch height "increase" was actually from showing their true relative heights. Best post of the tourney!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Nov 15, 2011 7:02:12 GMT -5
Paul may have lost a few millimeters as he has "matured". As for their true relative heights, just look at the pictures from Sgt. Pepper. They are all wearing the same style shoe/slipper if you have seen them. The front and back covers make it clear--Paul is noticebly taller than George and even more so compared to John. Based on the cover (and other photos) if Ringo was around 5'7" then John was 5'9 1/2", George was 5'10" and Paul was at least 5'11" if not 5'11 1/2". That's absurd, but it doesn't surprise me. So now your favored Paulie is also the TALLEST of the Beatles too, huh? Although Paul may come across as taller the way the PEPPER cover is arranged, he was no taller than John and George. PEPPER gives the faux impression Paul is the tallest, just the way it's all set up; that's no more accurate than Paul's head looking "peanut sized" on the earlier cover. You want proof? Just look at any of the gazillions of photographs and/or movie footage when the Beatles are together. I recall repeatedly reading the stats on the Fabs as follows: John, Paul, George - 5' 11" Ringo - 5' 8" Paul may be your favorite, but it doesn't mean he has to be tallest, too.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Nov 15, 2011 11:20:16 GMT -5
With/Meet The Beatles photo: Being a photographer, it's clear what the photog was after here. He wanted to get their heads close together which is a common thing in a close-up group photo. He also put them in black turtle-necks against a black backdrop for effect. He also chose NOT to just have them side-by-side because he wanted to be able to get closer. Paul is quite a distance more away from the camera than John and Ringo are. Ringo was sitting down for sure. John ended up looking like he has a huge head. This would have been a more conventional way to pose four people up close. Uploaded with ImageShack.us
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Nov 15, 2011 11:22:53 GMT -5
Here, the photog staggered the guys more so they were very close to the same distance form the camera - John being a little back. Uploaded with ImageShack.us
|
|
wooltonian
Very Clean
"Football isn't a matter of life and death - it's much more important than that." Bill Shankly.
Posts: 796
|
Post by wooltonian on Nov 15, 2011 11:31:37 GMT -5
RTP has really got me thinking! Paul actually does have a head shaped almost exactly like a peanut! PaulPeanutIt's uncanny. I've been staring at these pictures for hours and I honestly can't tell the difference!
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 15, 2011 11:44:00 GMT -5
I just blew tea out of my nose.
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Nov 15, 2011 14:33:06 GMT -5
Regarding the utterly ridiculous subject of the Beatles height. Ringo - shorter. Other three - same. Now if someone would be good enough to kick me in the ass for actually joining into the discussion. Uploaded with ImageShack.us, Uploaded with ImageShack.us, Uploaded with ImageShack.us, Uploaded with ImageShack.us, Uploaded with ImageShack.us
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Nov 15, 2011 16:40:07 GMT -5
Regarding the utterly ridiculous subject of the Beatles height. LOL, on Steve's first Message Board a poster later banned for another reason started a Thread on that certain body part of each Beatle wondering who won in that category. Obviously that game required some speculation(although not as to John) so the Thread died out, thank goodness. ;D Suddenly a discussion on height doesn't seem so bad!
|
|
|
Post by Snookeroo on Nov 15, 2011 17:28:44 GMT -5
Regarding the utterly ridiculous subject of the Beatles height. LOL, on Steve's first Message Board a poster later banned for another reason started a Thread on that certain body part of each Beatle wondering who won in that category. What? The nose? Ringo wins. That's what you meant, right?
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Nov 15, 2011 22:08:11 GMT -5
Yoko reminds me of the topless natives I used to see in National Geographic magazines on Africa when I was a kid, 45 years ago. They were my first glimpses of topless women..... Glad I found out later about Playboy. ;D
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 16, 2011 6:40:45 GMT -5
Two of the least alluring Fabs photos of all time IMO.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Nov 16, 2011 6:44:19 GMT -5
That's the end of this round.
|
|