Objection!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.
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.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.
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.BigTuk said:Imagine a T-rex with a colloration more akin to a raven, or an eagle....
You see.....that´s where the quote would have stoped 25 Years ago.Rawbeard said:of course a claymore lightsaber looks 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.Mary Beth Mercuri said:Can't say I agree with you Bob, I think feather dinosaurs look badass.
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.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.