The Big Picture: Dinosaur Exodus

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Dinosaur Exodus

Real dinosaurs aren't exactly like the kind we see in Jurassic Park, and that's kind of a bummer.

Watch Video
 

Rawbeard

New member
Jan 28, 2010
224
0
0
of course a claymore lightsaber looks badass, but tiny blades that make it look like that without any real functionality looks retarded. And don't tell me the stubs are made of magic metal, Darth Maul sure would have loved to have that.
 

schwegburt

New member
Jan 5, 2012
29
0
0
Mary Beth Mercuri said:
Can't say I agree with you Bob, I think feather dinosaurs look badass.
Chernobyl Parrots. Sounds like we got the next Sharknado in the horizon.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Isn't the lack of feathers a logical conclusion in regards to CGI? You don't have to render all those thousands of feathers, and it won't have all that to make its appearance on screen look worse.

Also Claymore Lightsaber is just wrong. My very first look at it and it screamed "won't work". You can lose your hand if you rely on that to block, and if they're caught on the hilt, its quite possible that they end up taking off the main blade. Could always use a Cortosis Weave hilt, or there's two other ways to do it - point them in opposing directions to all parts of the blade are caught. Alternative is to have a normal hilt bit have the lightsaber energy extend out via width rather than length.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
T-Rex could still look awesome and bad ass with feathers... you see the problem with the portrayal is that they go out of their way to make the damned plummage as garrishg as possible.

Look we know some birds use feathers for colourful display but here's the thing... Most Don't. Most birds have plumage that will not make them stand out like a white guy at a black panther rally.

Imagine a T-rex with a colloration more akin to a raven, or an eagle....

But I can respect that BoB. I too prefer my dinos feather free.. at least until they come up with a way to make them look bad ass with feathers.
 

P-89 Scorpion

New member
Sep 25, 2014
466
0
0
Well Bob the majority agree with you that dinosaurs looking like mutant chicken suck and the paleontologist community is finding out that the hard way with a huge decline in interest of students taking up the field that was never that big in the first place.

As to the Exodus film it's a no win situation could you image a film with Israeli actors killing lots of Arabs? it would not only bomb in the US and Europe but would be banned nearly everywhere with a large Muslim population.
 

LaughingAtlas

New member
Nov 18, 2009
873
0
0
I've seen all kinds of wacky crap depicted as a lightsaber, and as I stopped caring about Star Wars quite a while ago, the claymore seems pretty passable.

Feathered dinosaurs, though? Apparently truth really is stranger than fiction, see also Barrerleye Fish [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoygy-8PTtU]. That might be how they really looked, but damned if it doesn't look stupid. Only things they're missing are makeup and puffy wigs to look like hulking lizard-clowns.

Ooh, maybe they're hoping for the coulrophobia angle to help with the intimidation factor?
 

Anomynous 167

New member
May 6, 2008
404
0
0
Rawbeard said:
of course a claymore lightsaber looks badass, but tiny blades that make it look like that without any real functionality looks retarded. And don't tell me the stubs are made of magic metal, Darth Maul sure would have loved to have that.
Objection!
The problem with the tiny blades isn't that they lack function, its that they look darn well dangerous to use as a careless jedi could easily cut himself.

As for their function, they would stop other people's lightsabres from cutting your hands off. Just think of how many Jedi hands could be saved. On the otherhand, I wouldn't be using them as a boomerang any time soon.
 

Izanagi009_v1legacy

Anime Nerds Unite
Apr 25, 2013
1,460
0
0
My opinion on this is simple:

Reality will not allow the continuation of fantasies for long and one must be able to set aside their fantasies to accept reality. In other words, while I can understand the nostalgia of old fantasies, one must face facts and our media is the best way to have people do that.

As such, if one makes a movie with the classic reptilian dinosaurs, there should be a counter force from people with a massive surge of works explaining why it's wrong.
 

Rawbeard

New member
Jan 28, 2010
224
0
0
Anomynous 167 said:
As for their function, they would stop other people's lightsabres from cutting your hands off. Just think of how many Jedi hands could be saved. On the otherhand, I wouldn't be using them as a boomerang any time soon.
They would only stop another blade if the blade aimed at them, considering how guards usually work the other saber would simply chop those guards off and then your hand, because instead of using your Jedi awesome to protect your hands you relied on a flawed design. If the blades started at the hilt it could work and sure, it's dangerous, but so is every other lightsaber anyway, so... whatever. don't give those to toddlers, I guess. Oh, wait. They did. Idiots. The Jedi deserve every single purge they got.
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
Regardless of how you feel about feathered dinosaurs, the book provided two "outs" they can easily incorporate into the movie:

1) The Jurassic Park dinos aren't 100% authentic natural dinos. A big chunk of their DNA comes from modern-day amphibians and reptiles, which can account for their more reptilian look. (This also works as a general handwave for the story: any unscientific facts about the JP dinos can be attributed to this as well.)

2) Even if that doesn't, the Park isn't committed to creating an authentic reproduction of what actual dinosaurs would have looked like. They're a theme park selling people on the popular perception of "Real(tm)" dinosaurs, and most people picture dinosaurs as giant lizards, not giant roosters. There's a conversation in the novel where Dr. Wu, the geneticist, tells Hammond the dinos they've engineered are really fast-moving, but he could start from scratch and whip up a new batch that fit the slower, lumbering brutes their customers will expect. Hammond rejects this, but mostly because of the expense. In any event, reproducing prehistory accurately was never their mission statement.
 

ms_sunlight

New member
Jun 6, 2011
606
0
0
BigTuk said:
Imagine a T-rex with a colloration more akin to a raven, or an eagle....
Exactly! They were large land-based apex predators. Look at the large land-based apex predators we have now - lions, tigers and bears. They tend to have colouration that blends in with their surroundings, because it helps them to hunt. A feathered t-rex coloured like a grey wolf or a cheetah, that I could get behind.
 

wswordsmen

New member
Mar 27, 2009
33
0
0
Claymore lightsaber would actually be more functional than normal lightsabers, except you are way more likely to cut yourself with it. Put a little thing of metal underneath and it is awesome.

As for dinosaurs you are about as wrong as you can be. Your views that dinosaurs are awesome the way they look basically dates back to Jurassic Park. It is incumbent on the media to make reality awesome, which means that reality should be depicted as accurately as possible while still fitting the story in fiction. People get way more information than they should from movies like that, which is why real scientists criticize them for accuracy. If they get it wrong that means a lot of people will think incorrect things about the subject. It isn't to reign in crazy awesome stuff it is to make sure the public is aware of the real thing.

BTW T-Rex was always a mutant chicken, just because they were wrong before doesn't mean they should be right now.
 

Britpoint

New member
Aug 30, 2013
85
0
0
I always think of Star Wars and Jurassic Park in very similar terms - they were both 'classic films with John Williams music that I loved in my childhood'. So given the way Star Wars was treated in its "special" editions I almost expected a Jurassic Park re-release with feathered dinosaurs.

I'm glad they're staying reptilian for the next film. Not because I think the lizard look is inherently more awesome - I'd get used to feathers if exposed to them for a while - but because that's how they've been established in this franchise.
 

Chuppi

New member
Mar 6, 2013
52
0
0
Rawbeard said:
of course a claymore lightsaber looks badass
You see.....that´s where the quote would have stoped 25 Years ago.
People back then weren´t so picky, they didn´t mind if it was practical or scientifically accurate.
Star Wars has always been more of a fairy tale than scientifically accurat fiction, so in my oppinion,
they can add every kind of cool looking nonsense, as long as they don´t bore me, like they did with the last three movies.
 

jFr[e]ak93

New member
Apr 9, 2010
369
0
0
You know why I'm glad they don't have feathers?

Continuity.

It would be moronic to have three movies of lizard monsters to switch over to Chernobyl parrots. You can't write your way out of it. Sure, one or two killer parrots, but no all of them.

That was one of my grips with the 2nd and 3rd movies (aside from the fact the 3rd one just sucked), the raptors looked different. I can understand if it's a different breed, but seriously... stuff doesn't know it's in a sequel...

It's like the Star Wars prequels. I always feel that chronologically, technology regresses in that franchise because so much changes in the prequels.
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,185
0
0
Mary Beth Mercuri said:
Can't say I agree with you Bob, I think feather dinosaurs look badass.
When I look out of my window and see an angry Robin forcing other birds away from the bird table, it fills me with awe to think that its ancestor could potentially cleave me in half with a bite.

Probably European Robins have always eaten insects and seeds since a few amphibians decided to be less soft.

The thing I've always wondered was; how did a cold blooded reptile evolve into the Dinosaurs which became the warm blooded birds?

Feathered Dinosaurs are awesome. It's just perhaps they shouldn't be depicted as peacocks.
 

NinjaDeathSlap

Leaf on the wind
Feb 20, 2011
4,474
0
0
Say what you will, chickens can be viscous bastards, and their appetite has no end, so the idea of being chased by a chicken with teeth the size of a JCB would be the stuff of my most awesome nightmares.

Also, I am definitely on team Claymore lightsaber. It just looks cool, and rule of cool is all that really matters in sci-fi as soft as Star Wars. Even then, if you really want to get anal about it, just about the only thing that doesn't get cut easily by a lightsaber blade is another lightsaber blade, so what else are they supposed to make a cross guard out of?

I mean, it's not as cool as seeing Maul's double-bladed saber in action for the first time, but neither is it anywhere near as goofy looking as Count Dooku's crooked-penis saber.
 

Robot Number V

New member
May 15, 2012
657
0
0
Falseprophet said:
Regardless of how you feel about feathered dinosaurs, the book provided two "outs" they can easily incorporate into the movie:

1) The Jurassic Park dinos aren't 100% authentic natural dinos. A big chunk of their DNA comes from modern-day amphibians and reptiles, which can account for their more reptilian look. (This also works as a general handwave for the story: any unscientific facts about the JP dinos can be attributed to this as well.)

2) Even if that doesn't, the Park isn't committed to creating an authentic reproduction of what actual dinosaurs would have looked like. They're a theme park selling people on the popular perception of "Real(tm)" dinosaurs, and most people picture dinosaurs as giant lizards, not giant roosters. There's a conversation in the novel where Dr. Wu, the geneticist, tells Hammond the dinos they've engineered are really fast-moving, but he could start from scratch and whip up a new batch that fit the slower, lumbering brutes their customers will escape. Hammond rejects this, but mostly because of the expense. In any event, reproducing prehistory accurately was never their mission statement.
Exactly what I came here to point out. If the dinosaurs look like they've been redesigned to be more marketable to large audiences at the expense of accuracy, it's because they HAVE BEEN. They're SUPPOSED to look like that.

It's actually a really smart way of getting Bob's "traditional", "awesome" dinosaurs into the story. The explanation makes sense scientifically(to the same degree that cloning dinosaurs makes sense scientifically, anyway), and it shows how the Park's creators are more interested in making money than they are in furthering science. There's really no debate to be had here, Crichton covered his bases.