Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-129.93.5.131-20141201013832/@comment-1187034-20160110020805

Sorry for the late reply. Jhayk&#039; Sulliy wrote:



I recognize this prop. It was sold by an eBay seller that also sold me a fake "production used" Bull T. rex tooth. It came with some shitty hand made COA. It's clearly not from the same mold as the screen used prop as seen in the image I posted above. The tell-tale give away for me that shows this was a fake is the way the back of the tooh "bends" instead of flowing in a natural curve. The T. rex tooth I bought off this guy (pictured right) looked legit, too. Accurate paint detailing on the bottom, painted on placement number, even flecks of dried glue on the screw, but believe me it was a fake. The truth is, there were no production teeth made. There was a single prop made, the one Pratt holds in the movie. However, there would be none made with drill holes. There was no animatronic made for the iRex, thus no where to put teeth with drill holes into.

Now, I also happen to have in my possession, a replica Carcharodontosaurus tooth, and a replica "Sue" the T. rex tooth (one of the original runs). On the left is the Carcharodontosaurus tooth, on the right is the Sue tooth. I took pictures of both the serrated and the flat sides off the teeth. The Carcharodontosaurus tooth is a classic Allosauroid tooth: flat, sharp, serated edges, perfect for slicing into flesh like a newly sharpened bowie knife. The T. rex tooth, on the other hand, is conical. It's like a thick, curved, railroad spike. In other words, it's exactly like the iRex tooth. Look at the teeth in the screenshot. Big, round, cones. They're not flat slicers, they're big cones made to puncture.





Thanks for the heads up on the prop.

I stand corrected on the teeth of Indominus. The teeth are very conical like T. rex and not like the carcharodontosaurid teeth that you have posted on this thread. I have since removed the false information on the Indominus rex. Thank you for debating this with me. Jhayk&#039; Sulliy wrote: Also, keep in mind, that in that interview he's speaking in terms of the viral site. As for the canonically of the viral website, I read the entire EW interview and not once was the website ever mentioned and I didn't seen any indication that it was about the website. There is the statement at the beginning of the article that says that Indominus is 50ft long and 18ft high, but that comes from the LEGO website, not JurassicWorld.com. Plus, the LEGO website's info about the raptors were vindicated in Empire magazine, so the LEGO website has some canonically to it.

If you wish to discuss this further I advice to make a separate thread about it as we are going off-topic on this thread.