The Big Picture: Dinosaur Exodus

Skeleon

New member
Nov 2, 2007
5,410
0
0
Well, at least you recognize how childish it is. Doesn't really make it better, but okay. If they want to portray dinosaurs, they should do dinosaurs as they probably looked, not as we got used to them to look. You could still have something about genetically engineered giant reptiles or something. Or, hell, if you really want to keep your dinosaurs, say that they lost their ability to grow feathers consistently (because we did see at least partially feathered velociraptors in JP3) through a mutation or mistake or something in the cloning process or something, fine. They are horrible abominations of science and misshapen mutant freaks, not dinosaurs.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Oct 29, 2010
18,157
2
3
Country
UK
I do kinda admit that I find the raptors in the trailer somewhat odd since in the third film they had feathers but none the less it never bother me since I guess it a homage to the first film. I can also let it slid that the whole cloning the dino thing isn't 100% sucess hence the reptiles dino we saw in the film.

In saying so, if the scientist keep insisting that the feather dinos is the true depiction of Dinosaurs then they MUST redrawn and redesign the dinosaurs we got at the moment! I mean look at the T Rex original form that the back was like a slope, I remember seeing drawings of it as a kid and thanks to Jurassic Park, it was redesign (or rather altering the skeletons) so that its back were all straight since that how is suppose to be like and had move.
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
Anomynous 167 said:
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.
If you look very close the tiny laser extensions have two tiny metal extensions were they come out of. So in the case that another jedi might slide his blade down the bastard light sword, it would most likely cut through the metal, thus disabling the tiny laser parts before they could be of any advantage to the jedi or sith fighting with the bastard sword. If they would originate directly from the sword-hilt i would agree that they could be a functional defense.
 

Sylocat

Sci-Fi & Shakespeare
Nov 13, 2007
2,122
0
0
Aliasi said:
http://xkcd.com/1104/

He keeps bringing up parrots and such, and that's the wrong tack to take.

Imagine a majestic bird. An eagle, a falcon, hell, a friggin' roc, given the size of these critters. That's damn scary!

I mean, come on, Velociraptors used their "dorky" feathers to aid them in hunting and eviscerating their prey! That's gotta count for something, right?
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
Sylocat said:
Aliasi said:
http://xkcd.com/1104/

He keeps bringing up parrots and such, and that's the wrong tack to take.

Imagine a majestic bird. An eagle, a falcon, hell, a friggin' roc, given the size of these critters. That's damn scary!

I mean, come on, Velociraptors used their "dorky" feathers to aid them in hunting and eviscerating their prey! That's gotta count for something, right?
Also it strikes me people have never actually seen a carnivorous lizard and a bird-of-prey in action.

I like lizards and think they're cool, but a giant bird would be way scarier.
Also ostriches and other big birds are so cool...

I saw the JP raptors as a kid, and once I learned they were related to birds and had feathers they became so much cooler.

maffgibson said:
If we are being slaves to accuracy while trying to retain the part that they play in the films, we are stuck either with people being chased by chickens, or larger feathered dinos called "Deinonychus", which is just hard to pronounce and unappealing.
Or you could call them 'Utahraptors' and make them even larger?
 

Cpt. Slow

Great news everybody!
Dec 9, 2012
168
0
0
Oh god, and here I am... being Dutch. Hoping to evade the whole 'Black Pete' debate in my country and now Bob brings that up? Hey Bob, ever heard of the term whiteface [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteface_%28performance%29]? You as a film buff should know that. The film White Chicks also brought that up. Should we ban that? It's pretty racist to white people as well.
 

DarkDragon22

New member
Dec 2, 2014
2
0
0
MovieBob, I cannot agree with your view that feathered dinosaurs are "cruddy" and that scaly dinosaurs are "cooler". This anti-feathered dinosaur view is rather problematic and if mainstream movies continue with this outdated view, people are going to keep believing that dinosaurs were that way. In reality, dinosaurs are much more complex than the "scaly lizards" that people of yesteryear thought. They have gotten far more interesting, and the fact that you reject all of that in favor of an outdated view simply because it "looks cooler" is really disappointing.

The chicken/parrot comment is also a bit depressing because it sounds like you are limiting your view on birds. Birds are wide and varied. Why, when you think of, say, a feathered tyrannosaurus, you think of a chicken? Why not an eagle? Or a falcon? Those are birds and they are not to be trifled with. Why not think of a golden eagle, or a haast's eagle, an extinct bird that was thought of being big enough to carry a man. Or a cassowary? Why not think of those birds instead of a chicken? Don't limit the bird group to a single entry.

A reptilian dinosaur would be limited on what it could do. Temperature would be a factor. They could only move fast in warm climates. And they would have much shorter bursts of speed. A feathered dinosaur, on the other hand, would be more active. They would be able to run up vertical surfaces (some of them, like the raptors), make sharper turns, etc. If you think birds are, somehow, less intimidating, you clearly have not met a cassowary, or been on the pecking end of an angry mother bird.

An angry crocodile, you can outrun. An angry mob of crows, good luck.

The point is just because a dinosaur is "cooler" with scales does not mean that it is actually scarier. When you add all the facts up, a feathered velociraptor is much more terrifying than a sluggish scaly dinosaur.

Yeah maybe I am overthinking it, but dinosaurs are a subject I enjoy, and it boils my blood when people hate on feathered dinosaurs just for being bird-like, without taking into consideration what all that entails (more active, faster, more intelligent). Had this video just been about excercising the right to show inaccuracies just because it's a movie, that's fine. But this video comes off as more of a "fuck feathered dinosaurs rant", and I personally find that rather insulting.
 

Trishbot

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
The whole "feathered" dinosaur argument isn't even full proof. It's not like it has to be all or nothing; some probably had feathers... many probably did NOT have feathers. Even if they had feathers, they were likely not brightly colored rainbows but more dark and grays, like ostrich or emu feathers.

But even Jurassic Park ALREADY did the feathered dinosaur bit... It wasn't that better, really.
 

crazygameguy4ever

New member
Jul 2, 2012
751
0
0
gotta agree with Bob.. feather dinosaurs just don't work in the Jurassic Park movies.. they look like mutant chickens and aren't scary .. their funny looking
 

Keith K

New member
Oct 29, 2009
274
0
0
It's very rare that I walk away from an episode of The Big Picture taking away nothing. This is one of those times. There's no big picture here. The big picture is that dinosaurs were downy (not feathered) and continue to be misrepresented by pop culture.

Micheal Crichton knew this. The very first Jurassic Park knew this, acknowledged it and then stomped on it in perhaps the greatest disservice to the public perception of dinosaurs in the history of paleontology. The only reason it's a disservice to you is probably because of your personal obsession with Godzilla. Maybe if anyone could make a decent Godzilla flick today, you wouldn't care about the bastardization of dinosaurs so much.

Dinosaurs ARE fucking cool! There's no reason to think they all looked like Rainbow Brite, even though some almost certainly did, just like birds today. Eagles aren't parrots, but they're fucking cool! Owls aren't bluejays but they're fucking cool! And ya know what? Parrots and Bluejays are fucking cool too.

You're advocating sending a generation of kids to the museum on a school trip to be disappointed by REAL dinosaurs just because you are. That is a fucking travesty.
 

shiajun

New member
Jun 12, 2008
578
0
0
I like feathered dinosaurs. If anything, it reminds even more of contemporary birds of prey, and those are damn intimidating, like eagles. Heck, even vultures are rather frightening. Also, even a freaking angry rooster is far more intimidating than an angry chamaeleon, if were' going to go with those size comparisons. Snakes, on the other hand, those are really scary in their agility and stealthiness.

On Exodus. I didn't see people complaining about "Noah" doing the exact same thing. People in Noah's time, in that supposed part of the world (though it's not even clear where that is supposed to be before the flood) probably didn't look like Emma Watson, Jennifer Connely, Russell Crowe or Anthony Hopkins.

Captcha: comma, comma

Are you riffing me on the chamaeleon thing, captcha?
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
People are still going on about that fucking claymore lightsaber?

I'm all for nerdy debates, but we're arguing over the design and practicality of swords made of light, as as wielded by space wizards.

Guh...

Besides, that style of lightsaber already existed in the established canon. So if you wanna ***** about it, do it to ol' Georgie.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

As for Jurassic World, I can't say I entirely agree with Bob on this one. While I think they could easily explain away the lack of feathers with the series "genetic science" (and perhaps should in the interest of continuity), I personally feel that the series could be improved by offering a more, if ever so slightly, realistic take on dinosaurs.

That said, I don't take issue with the continued use of the old designs.

I look forward to seeing the film. Hopefully it's worth the ticket price.
 

Nomanslander

New member
Feb 21, 2009
2,963
0
0
Don't worry Bob, I like the Claymore saber too! The ridiculous amount of out pouring over this has been pretty... well... ridiculous! I don't think a teaser trailer in the history of cinema has ever gotten more views, comments, love and scrutinization ever. Everyone is rushing to the front lines to make that one clever observation like they're Mr. Plinkett, and it all just make them all look dumb when they're all making the same joke... but acting like it's uniquely them that have noticed it.

But I digress.

As for the whole giant mutant chicken thing... lol! I kinda feel like I agree there too. But I like how no one wants to talk about how stupid that all looks since "science" is involved.

Science really has become the new religion in all its ugliness.

:/
 

Shdwrnr

Waka waka waka
May 20, 2011
79
0
0
The biggest problem I've had with the current depiction of feathered dinosaurs is how they (as depicted in your clips) always seem to be shown with horrible garish colors. What predator becomes successful being that flamboyant? I can't think of any; and the birds that they take after all share something that the dinosaurs don't: flight. Tropical birds are afforded the luxury of colors because they can make up for it in flight. I think they could make awesome feathered dinos if they took after eagles/falcons/owls/etc. and relegated the colorful ones to either herd/flock animals or animals with some other form of protection (hadrosaurs nesting in enormous herds or appatosaurs just being so massive as to not be bothered).

Side note: where are my brachiosaurs with trunks?
 

Makabriel

New member
May 13, 2013
547
0
0
Anomynous 167 said:
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.
Correct. They function as a normal crossguard would for a lightsabre. They deflect or catch other lightsabres.

Also, people compare modern and "earth" fighting styles. They would be developing their own martial art to adapt to whatever blade they create, just like any fighting society..
 

Makabriel

New member
May 13, 2013
547
0
0
They explain this in the first Jurassic park movie.. Start at the 1:50 mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUaFYzFFbBU

They use reptilian DNA, which is why all of Jurassic Park's dinosaurs were reptilian. Chriton had it well handled.
 

47_Ronin

New member
Jul 30, 2012
161
0
0
Shit, Bob brought the popo, gotta split. Before I do: Yes on the dinosaurs, meh on the sword. Doesn't metal sticking out on the sides defeat the purpose? All you have to do is hit those parts and you're golden.
 

LordBojangles

New member
Feb 25, 2009
37
0
0
Crichton had this debate in Jurassic Park--but it was about dinosaurs being highly active, rather than the tail-dragging giant lizards that the general public expected in the 80s.

Page 122-3:
"You want to replace all the current stock of animals?" Hammond said.

"Yes, I do."

"Why? What's wrong with them?"

"Nothing," Wu said, "except that they're real dinosaurs."

"That's what I asked for, Henry," Hammond said, smiling. "And that's what you gave me."

"I know," Wu said. "But you see. . ." He paused. How could he explain this to Hammond? Hammond hardly ever visited the island. And it was a peculiar situation that Wu was trying to convey. "Right now, as we stand here, almost no one in the world has ever seen an actual dinosaur. Nobody knows what they're really like."

"Yes . . ."

"The dinosaurs we have now are real," Wu said, pointing to the screens around the room, "but in certain ways they are unsatisfactory, Unconvincing. I could make them better."

"Better in what way?"

"For one thing, they move too fast," Henry Wu said. "People aren't accustomed to seeing large animals that are so quick. I'm afraid visitors will think the dinosaurs look speeded up, like film running too fast."

"But, Henry, these are real dinosaurs. You said so yourself."

"I know," Wu said. "But we could easily breed slower, more domesticated dinosaurs."

"Domesticated dinosaurs?" Hammond snorted. "Nobody wants domesticated dinosaurs, Henry. They want the real thing."

"But that's my point," Wu said. "I don't think they do. They want to see their expectation, which is quite different."

Hammond was frowning.

"You said yourself, John, this park is entertainment," Wu said. "And entertainment has nothing to do with reality. Entertainment is antithetical to reality."

Hammond sighed. "Now, Henry, are we going to have another one of those abstract discussions? You know I like to keep it simple. The dinosaurs we have now are real, and-"

"Well, not exactly," Wu said. He paced the living room, pointed to the monitors. "I don't think we should kid ourselves. We haven't re-created the past here. The past is gone. It can never be re-created. What we've done is reconstruct the past-or at least a version of the past. And I'm saying we can make a better version."

"Better than real?"

"Why not?" Wu said. "After all, these animals are already modified. We've inserted genes to make them patentable, and to make them lysine dependent. And we've done everything we can to promote growth, and accelerate development into adulthood."

Hammond shrugged. "That was inevitable. We didn't want to wait. We have investors to consider."

"Of course. But I'm 'ust saying, why stop there? Why not push ahead to make exactly the kind of dinosaur that we'd like to see? One that is more acceptable to visitors, and one that is easier for us to handle? A slower, more docile version for our park?"

Hammond frowned. "But then the dinosaurs wouldn't be real."

"But they're not real now," Wu said. "That's what I'm trying to tell you. There isn't any reality here." He shrugged helplessly. He could see he wasn't getting through.

(I don't know if this kind of thing is allowed, but I assume many people don't have a copy of Jurassic Park handy.)