MarsAtlas said:
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.
Or maybe lightsabres, even the regular ones, were never intended to be practical, desirable weapons and only really meant to look cool and spacey?

A lightclaymore is no sillier than Darth Maul's suicidally dangerous death-stick (which ranks amongst the most impractical melee weapons ever made). It's just meant to look cool and go vroooosh kachta kachta. Just roll with it and have fun. Almost none of the weapons in Star Wars are actually practical. Blaster bolts are slow, guns are often designed without stocks, creating horrendous accuracy issues, and starships have to roll up within visual range just to hit anything. But they look cool.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/umsrnb/lightsaber-controversy
Besides, Stephen Colbert already explained it. Makes total sense.
As for the feathered dinosaurs. On the one hand, yeah, it would be nice to reflect current science... but on the other, yeah, it's Jurassic Park and the dinosaurs just look a certain way. Honestly, if the movie wanted to explain it, it's pretty simple. Just have one of the people on the park comment that "Feathered dinosaurs didn't focus test well," so the park altered their dinosaurs to be more appealing. It's the exact sort of thing a cynical corporation with the ability to literally engineer its products would do.
With the Egyptians, yeah... that's tough. I think people tend to forget that "ancient Egypt" isn't like, one single thing. Egyptian civilization was one of the oldest, and longest-lasting continuous civilizations in human history. The Great Pyramid of Giza is as ancient to the Roman Empire as the Romans are from us today. And, when it comes to really ancient Egypt, the period where Exodus usually takes place, there's just not a whole lot of concrete information on what those people looked like. Given their location, yeah, they were most likely a multiracial sort of society though. A bit of north africa, a bit of the arabian peninsula, and a bit of Mediterranean peoples. Either way, the current casting *is* a bit too white, but this is a bit studio production. They're going to play it insanely, super-safe. I still think "Prince of Egypt" is one of the better adaptations of that particular story.