|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 4, 2006 23:16:12 GMT -5
On the covers of the Blue and Red albums you can see some obvious differences in the facial features of Paul and Bill that you normally would not from straight-on camera angles. The camera angle is from below, with the Beatles looking down into the camera and it shows some glaring differences. Notably, the thinner nose of Bill, the larger forehead of Bill and the obvious look of plastic surgery of Bill, especially under the eyes, when compared to Paul.  I always thought 'Paul' looked peculiar on the Blue album.  |
|
|
|
Post by eyesbleed on Feb 4, 2006 23:29:51 GMT -5
I saved this from way back when..... from somewhere.. so I figured it might as well go here.  |
|
|
|
Post by Jai Guru Deva on Feb 4, 2006 23:51:14 GMT -5
I've got the red and blue albums. All the pictures are ones we've seen before... Red has photos from 1963--1966, while Blue has 1968--1969. Sir Faul looks weird in all the pictures, quite different from Paul. In fact, John, George and Ringo look kind of unkempt and detatched too. Anyway, there's a definite chasm between the two albums.
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 5, 2006 10:58:22 GMT -5
I saved this from way back when..... from somewhere.. so I figured it might as well go here. Thanks for that EB. That's a much better shot. |
|
|
|
Post by bluemeanie on Feb 5, 2006 13:03:25 GMT -5
the eyes are quite a good match but the difference in nose size and shape is obvious
strange how most people don't notice such obvious things
|
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Feb 5, 2006 14:17:55 GMT -5
There's also a white cross on the ceiling above the Beatles on the blue cover. Probably nothing, but could symbolize Paul's death or replacement.
|
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Feb 5, 2006 18:27:35 GMT -5
Oh yeah! Well spotted Revolver, you could well be right.
|
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Feb 5, 2006 19:44:38 GMT -5
Let me quote another forum... The red pill for reality.The blue pill for illusion.I don't believe this is a coincidence but a deliberate clue as has now been pointed out in another thread. Why were none of James Paul's remaining good songs, released in 67-70, put on the blue album? |
|
|
|
Post by il ras on Feb 5, 2006 19:48:32 GMT -5
Anyway, those signs at the right end of both the mouths (our left) are very similar one to the other
|
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Feb 5, 2006 20:03:14 GMT -5
Just noticed something that could be of interest...
Blue Album - 4 further floors above them
Red Album - 5 further floors above them
Perhaps it's just me but I thought that the idea of the cover shot was to be (within reason) exactly the same, but how they were then...?
|
|
|
|
Post by DarkHorse on Feb 5, 2006 22:29:03 GMT -5
The way I look at the Red & Blue album covers is red is for blood, as in the blood Paul shed in his death. And the blue is for the Beatles feeling 'blue' after losing him.
|
|
|
|
Post by -Wings- on Feb 6, 2006 2:45:16 GMT -5
It could be an accident, but I'm sure the photographer would have brought the original photo with for reference.
The extra floor above them probably does symbolize the addition of a 'fifth' Beatle since the original photo was taken.
|
|
|
|
Post by Doc on Feb 6, 2006 6:06:36 GMT -5
It could be an accident, but I'm sure the photographer would have brought the original photo with for reference. The extra floor above them probably does symbolize the addition of a 'fifth' Beatle since the original photo was taken. Also, the photographer on the second shoot (who, and is it the same as on the first one) may have decided, as part of his art direction and usage of the results, was that one day a composite would be made of the two shots. Which we have seen. This would make it neccessary to photograph on a floor higher or lower in order to make the eventual combination shot work. Not room enough for 8 Beatles to be overlooking from the same floor. |
|
|
|
Post by lili on Feb 6, 2006 13:37:43 GMT -5
I swear Doc, you look like Mark Hamill ! I have photos that my husband & myself took of him when he was performing in Amadeus on broadway. I have to dig them out & scan them so I can show you !  |
|
|
|
Post by revolver on Feb 6, 2006 23:47:22 GMT -5
I think it's been pointed out before that that Bill is covering his chin, unlike Paul. It was probably to keep the facial differences less noticeable. But it does make him stand out as the only Beatle striking a noticeably different pose than on the red cover.
|
|
|
|
Post by noodles on Feb 7, 2006 12:29:43 GMT -5
I think it's been pointed out before that that Bill is covering his chin, unlike Paul. It was probably to keep the facial differences less noticeable. But it does make him stand out as the only Beatle striking a noticeably different pose than on the red cover. I can remember staring at the sleeve of this album many years ago think 'why is Paul's arm in the wrong position?' ;D That angle is a little too revealing for them I guess. Re: the 4/5 floors thing. There are five floors in both pictures. The first picture is taken at a slightly different angle plus the higher floors are more out of focus (different lense?). If you have a vinyl copy of the album you can see the the fifth floor. John's hands are slightly different and presumably dropping the mandatory 'clue'.   Also Paul and John look so happy in the first picture. Not even a fake smile for the second.  |
|
|
|
Post by lili on Feb 7, 2006 12:57:37 GMT -5
Good catch, noodles.
|
|
|
|
Post by plastic paul on Feb 7, 2006 13:48:24 GMT -5
Having looked again, it appears you are correct.
|
|
