The Big Picture: Dinosaur Exodus

Moeez

New member
May 28, 2009
603
0
0
Uh, you know you could TRY to make feathered dinosaurs look and be badass? That's what creativity is for. There is loads of cool shit in real science but Bob comes off from science as if it's some boring, sobering reality to his nostalgic expectations.

We're sending men to Mars in 2030, and most likely a lot of it will be live-streamed for anyone to see in the entire world! That's cooler imo than the novelty of hoverboards or laser dinosaurs or whatever 80s/90s extremz toy advertising would want to make you think is cool.
 

TheIceQueen

New member
Sep 15, 2013
420
0
0
The design of the claymore lightsaber is something that I drew once in the sixth grade.

It was stupid then and it's stupid now, my sixth grade self be damned.
 

Unknower

New member
Jun 4, 2008
865
0
0
My problem with the lightsaber-thing is how he drew it. It felt a bit overacted to me.

Dinosaurs! I absolutely agree about the feathers.

Sure, you could certainly try them in other movies but certainly not in Jurassic Park -franchise all of a sudden. At least wait until someone comes up with better design than those ridiculosaurs in the video. If you saw one of those rawring (chirping?) at you, you'd start rolling on the ground laughing and then it wouldn't even eat you because it thinks you're diseased or something.
 

Magmarock

New member
Sep 1, 2011
479
0
0
Sorry Bob, with all the talk on how computer games need to be more politically correct and both movies and games need to show more respect and sensitivity to history, gender, LGBT and what for. With you seeming to be in favor of this.

I can say that a part of me does agree with you on whole changing of the dinosaurs thing. While another part of me wants to just watch you swallow your own medicine. I'm a PC who's been playing First person shooters since they started in the 90s and all I can say is "welcome to my world."
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
Rahkshi500 said:
Nah, still ain't convince. The chicken comment is usually brought up due to the common idea that the chicken is the closest descendent to the T-rex and other large carnivorous dinosaurs. If anything, most flightless land birds are not impressive.
Said by someone who has never seen a Cassowary in action.


Look, I love the idea that Dinosaurs were these majestic land dragons as much as anyone else but I've come to accept that the current, accepted scientific representation was that they had feathers. I don't expect Jurassic World to teach me that because frankly it isn't their job - and anyone who got into and stayed into dinosaurs enough to study paleontology would probably never have been put off by the facts in the first place.
 

Rahkshi500

New member
May 25, 2014
190
0
0
Gordon_4 said:
Rahkshi500 said:
Nah, still ain't convince. The chicken comment is usually brought up due to the common idea that the chicken is the closest descendent to the T-rex and other large carnivorous dinosaurs. If anything, most flightless land birds are not impressive.
Said by someone who has never seen a Cassowary in action.


Look, I love the idea that Dinosaurs were these majestic land dragons as much as anyone else but I've come to accept that the current, accepted scientific representation was that they had feathers. I don't expect Jurassic World to teach me that because frankly it isn't their job - and anyone who got into and stayed into dinosaurs enough to study paleontology would probably never have been put off by the facts in the first place.
Built on the assumption that I haven't seen Cassowary in action, which I have and it still ain't impressive. So jokes on you. Also assuming that I don't accept the current scientific representation that they had feathers, which I never said.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,577
0
0
Rahkshi500 said:
Gordon_4 said:
Rahkshi500 said:
Nah, still ain't convince. The chicken comment is usually brought up due to the common idea that the chicken is the closest descendent to the T-rex and other large carnivorous dinosaurs. If anything, most flightless land birds are not impressive.
Said by someone who has never seen a Cassowary in action.


Look, I love the idea that Dinosaurs were these majestic land dragons as much as anyone else but I've come to accept that the current, accepted scientific representation was that they had feathers. I don't expect Jurassic World to teach me that because frankly it isn't their job - and anyone who got into and stayed into dinosaurs enough to study paleontology would probably never have been put off by the facts in the first place.
Built on the assumption that I haven't seen Cassowary in action, which I have and it still ain't impressive. So jokes on you. Also assuming that I don't accept the current scientific representation that they had feathers, which I never said.
They're able to gut a man, that's impressive.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
able_to_think said:
How did you go from dinosaurs to racism? That seems like a rather extreme tone shift to me.
Most dinosaurs tend to be pretty racist.

]EDIT: Yes, I know, #notalldinosaurs.
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,316
0
0
I like how everyone is now 100% sure they had feathers, just like everyone (25 years ago) was 100% sure dinosaurs were stupid, stood straight up and where covered in scales. Like how everyone was sure the velociraptors in Jurassic Park were make believe because raptors were actually small. You'll have to excuse me if I don't take certain "Dino facts" at face value when these things have gone under more real life incarnations then the spider-man movie franchise.

Something like a T-rex having feathers isn't impossible, maybe they did! Maybe certain ones did, since we see how different animals can be even amongst their own species, just look at the scaled and scale-less snakes. Maybe they all had feathers but only at certain ages, as adults, children, etc. Dinosaurs turning into birds wasn't something that happened over night, it was a progressive thing. After all, we all came from the ocean, so I seriously doubt their earliest incarnations had feathers.

There is also the little matter of the frog DNA used to create the dinosaurs, which I have to assume altered them in some superficial 'cosmetic' way considering there was enough to change their sex. Funny how people keep forgetting this. So I forget, do frogs have feathers?
 

Monsterfurby

New member
Mar 7, 2008
871
0
0
Just when I was about to go "now you sound exactly like a religious radical nut", you, Bob, acknowledge that exact fact. Kudos, hats off, much respect to you for that.

In the end, how we'd like dinosaurs to be shown in movies is subjective opinion, and even though I personally REALLY don't care about or for the Jurassic Park movies (I'm half a generation too young and a hundred generations too European, I suppose) I guess your position does have merit within the Jurassic Park universe - in THAT particular world, Dinosaurs look like this, period. It would be weird to retcon that due to learnings from the real world.
 

lastjustice

New member
Jun 29, 2004
132
0
0
Jurassic Park has never been an accurate portrayal of dinosaurs or claimed to be. Veloiraptors sure as heck aren't the size they are in the movies to say that much.(but the breed that is that size is doesn't have as cool of a name.) The spitters or Dilophosaurus were much larger than the film had. (likely didn't really spit poison.) Until someone invents a way view the past, I'm willing let whatever version people feel like showing end up in a movie.

Hollywood makes more than enough mistakes with stuff that really exists that we can factually prove wrong in films. Why does stuff that we have theories on some how come across worse than people constantly cocking their guns in actions movies? Fighter jets are shown constantly dogfighting or strafing targets at close range despite that style of war fair hasn't happened since world war 2. People casually hack thru security in secs. Hollywood screws up stuff this or doesn't care what the real rules are often enough of this sort of stuff. Why is the rule of cool not acceptable for Dinosaurs? Something that should always be cool.
 

carnex

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2008
828
0
21
So... longsword lightsaber and dinosaurs. Well yes, whatever. We all know why they have feathers. Original movies sparked new interest in dinsaurs and producers felt responsibility to be at least somewhat correct.

What botheres me is resoning that you can hold on scientifically inaccurate (to the best of our knowledge) facts, yet it's the possible "whitewashing" of what vast majority of humankind sees of purely fictional character that is unacceptable. Logic failure 101. If Moses existed he probably wasn't white. But guess what, same goes for every other character in old and new testament. So what? For most people, Bible is not historically accurate to say the least but rather metaphorical book of advices for righteous and good life. While dinosaurs are a bloody fact.

Captcha: HIGH HORSEE

yep, there are too many of them here, including one under me!
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
9,051
4,546
118
Country
United Kingdom
I think the feathery look could work very well on some dinosaurs, including velociraptors and other raptors.

I'd like the movie to show the scientific knowledge in some manner, though that needn't necessarily involve giving all the dinosaurs feathers. T-Rex and Allosaurus and things like that would still certainly look cooler without.
 

Xskills

New member
Jan 11, 2010
146
0
0
I think that in order keep in continuity, Jurassic World had no choice but to go with the original reptilian designs for dinosaurs because the amount of questions of why the dinosaurs would now have feathers (and would look hysterical by comparison) would make the film less approachable to the mass movie-watching public. What I do find funny is that they could be still using the dinosaurs-were-the-precursors-to-birds idea in how they were able to clone so many species and get around the problem that the original Jurassic Park's explanation was extracting DNA from mosquitos preserved in amber because DNA starts degrading after only 500 years as suggested by Bryce Dallas Howard's line "We have learned more in the past decade in genetics than a century of digging up bones." I think that line is not only a jab at The Lost World and JP3, but it's implying the strategy used to resurrect the various, (previously) extinct species is one that scientists have actually considered doing the real world. If birds are the ancestors of dinosaurs why not just rewind the evolution and undo all the mutations between 145 million years ago and the present?