The Big Picture: Dinosaur Exodus

11zxcvb11

New member
Apr 13, 2012
15
0
0
i think most people who bring up the amphibian dna in jurassic park are missing the point. this is not about whether the book or the movies can find an in-universe justification for scaly dinos or not; it is a bit more meta than that.

blockbuster high-budget dinosaur movies shape the public perception of dinosaurs far more than popular science books and magazines (or peer-reviewed papers). most people who saw the movies did not read the book and did not remember the small plot details about the dna even in the movie (i do not mean fans who post on forums such as these, i mean the vast majority of movie-going audience). what they remember are the dinosaurs and what they looked like.

just out of curiosity, bob, are you one of those people who think pluto should be classified in the same category as the 8 planets of our solar system...for nostalgia's sake?
 

DarkDragon22

New member
Dec 2, 2014
2
0
0
While I would have liked Jurassic World to portray feathered dinosaurs, I am not upset that they don't. I never actually expected it. It would have been great if they did, but it doesn't break my heart or anything that they don't.

This has been the most disappointing The Big Picture video I've seen, and I'm quite saddened by it. I loved this series and felt that Bob usually handled subjects rather well. Sometimes I do get something out of them, a different view or something I haven't considered before. But this one... It's the first one that I never finished. The "anti-feathered dinosaurs" rant turned me away.

I feel that you wasted an opportunity, Moviebob. The whole "Jurassic World should/should not have feathered dinosaurs" could have been open to a discussion about artistic license, and whether or not movie directors should be obligated to be accurate, or if they can get away with inaccuracies for the sake of entertainment. That would have been a much more interesting video that would have sparked better discussions. If you hate feathered dinosaurs so much, fine, that could be mentioned briefly, too, but the video should not have had a large portion about you complaining about feathered dinosaurs because of nostalgia. The video could have been so much better than this.
 

Stephen St.

New member
May 16, 2012
131
0
0
Is half this thread really claiming that they care about continuity and in-universe explanations in Jurassic Park? Yeah beacuse JP 2 and 3 totally did not retcon stuff and use cheap excuses for plotholes.

Jurassic Park 1 was believable because it made things just scientific enough that, while still wrong, they could convince anyone without inside knowledge. The New "Jurassic World" looks ridiculous to anyone who knows the first thing about dinosaurs. That means I cannot watch it, and therefore I am disappointed.
 

Demagogue

Sperm Alien
Mar 26, 2009
946
0
0
BigTuk said:
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.
On your note of a T-Rex with the coloration more akin to a raven or such, I think that would actually work very well. At least it did in Maleficent for the Raven/Dragon hybrid she turns Diaval into in Act 3. I could totally get behind a T-Rex done in that style/variant. Preferably not black though... a Brown/Green tone would work though.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
Oh Bob... I'm usually the first guy to defend you but as a Palaeontologist... I jus-I can't.

Feathered Dinosaurs are the shit, the idea of Dinosaurs as these malnourished, gaunt lizards is a thing of the past and anyway, there are a fuck ton of bad-ass looking birds. The Raptors in Jurassic Park 3 although waaaaaay smarter then they should have been looked awesome.

Ah man... I love the trailer and I don't know a single Dino-buff (there is a difference between them and your standard palaeontologist) who doesn't but the feathers thing is a legit complaint.
 

Uriel_Hayabusa

New member
Apr 7, 2014
418
0
0
Moviebob said:
These days, the more I like something; the more it seems like the rest of the world wants to tell me how lame it is
That strikes me as more than a little melodramatic, Bob. You're living in an age where your beloved superhero movies dominate the cinematic landscape (and mainstream cultural discourse), why play the victim just because some meanie film-snob makes the occasional dismissive remark about something you like?
 

luclin92

New member
Apr 22, 2009
418
0
0
i feel that the jurassic park films have their perfect excuse for how their dinosaurs look with the part that the dinosaurs are clones and have some new dna spliced into them. and since its a theme park it is put into why wouldn't they go with the look that people would think a dinosaur would look like.
 

Spyre2k

New member
Apr 9, 2013
52
0
0
With regards to the lightsaber, even the original was impractical because it had no hilt at all. Swords have hilts to protect the wielder's hands. I'm having trouble thinking of a sword design that doesn't have some form of hilt. The closest I can think of is Japanese sword designs which have a small disk as a hilt instead of the cross shape used in European designs.

Also the idea of a melee weapon in a futuristic age is impractical. Sure they can deflect "some" shots at them but as is often shown with the "extras" the Jedi still can get mowed down by lots of shoots because they are arrogantly over confident by not taking cover.

Then their is the basic issue of actually engaging in lightsaber combat as was already discussed in length by the fan after the Yoda fight scene. Thing like a taller opponent has greater reach which gives a distinct advantage in melee combat. Or races like the ones with the tentacles for hair would need to be extra careful given all the flipping could result in some getting cut off with a mis-swing.

And that doesn't even get into the sheer lack of science regarding their functioning. The closest speculation on how they might actually work is a plasma stream contained in magnetic field. But even that poses problems because they wouldn't be solid like we see when two collide. In order to cut through things as easily as it does it would have to heat the plasma stream so hot that you could see the heat coming off it and would easily burn things by proximity alone.

So the argument of the impracticality of a new design for a weapon that itself is impractical is kinda pointless. It all really only comes down to if you like the design or not.


Now on the topic of feathered dinosaurs I think the ones show in the video looked stupid and far less threatening than the ones in the original Jurassic Park. However I'm not appose to the idea of feather dinos. The problem with the ones shown is they are all rainbow colored which just looks stupid and begs the question how does that allow them an evolutionary advantage? Some modern birds can afford the vibrant multi-colors because they have few predators, flight, and it's for attracting a mate.

But it seems like far more birds have only one or two solid colors, usually in a darker such as brown so they can blend in with their surroundings. This can apply to predators trying to sneak up on their prey just as much as it applies to pray trying not to get caught. But a giant multi-colored T-Rex is gonna stick out like a sore thumb and it's pray would see if coming a mile away. Even cheetahs which as extremely fast try to sneak up as close as they can to their pray before going in to save energy.

So in short if they do it right I think feathered dinos could work. But not of that raindow crap. And they will have to get past nearly a century of the old reptile model of dinos that is the common public perception. I know some said public views on that we shifting but I haven't really seen it. My nephew is into dinos and among his toys, cloths, and etc I see nothing but the reptile style dinos and not a single feathered one. While I have often heard the Dinos turned into birds both in school and in the previous Jurassic Park movies they make mention of it. I haven't really seen many depictions of feathered dinosaurs.

In the end I say let academia and the scientific community do it's thing and just let Hollywood do it's thing with the monster movies. Because the Dinosaurs in those movies are genetic monsters created with incomplete DNA and the gaps filled in. Regardless of how much they try to pretend it's based on real science it's not, otherwise we would already have a real life dinosaur by now. It about as scientific as King Kong, Rise of Planet of the Apes, Jaws Series, Godzilla, and any other number of nature turned monster stories they all can be picked apart by glaring inaccuracies of real science.

Which is why they are Fictional movies and not "Based on Real Events" because reality if very dull where none of those things are even remotely possible given our current technology and most likely never will be because they are impossible. All that matters is was it fun to watch because Hollywood is in the business of making entertainment.
 

inkheart_artist

New member
Jan 22, 2009
274
0
0
I think they could make feathered dinosaurs look just as cool, if not cooler than the reptile version we've gotten used to. I mean, look at the secretary bird and how majestic it looks or how terrifying a cassowary can be when it attacks and blow that up to the size of an elephant and add teeth. I think the added color and plumage would make it even more compelling.






The tradition of dragon lore in the South Americas had dragons being feathered instead of scaly and I'd argue that they were more terrifying than the European renditions that informed what we thought they previously looked like.
 

Xpwn3ntial

Avid Reader
Dec 22, 2008
8,023
0
0
shadowmagus said:
I've said it before, I'll say it again.

You're arguing about space wizards wielding laser swords. Think about that.

OT: Old school dinosaurs are superior.
I have. Here is my response. I do not like the new lightsaber. It looks weird. Those two metal protrusions out of the hilt are weird.

I'd rather have this.



People can go on all day how "that's not how lightsabers work" but goddammit, it has crossguards and looks badass while doing so.
 

Rowan93

New member
Aug 25, 2011
485
0
0
xPixelatedx said:
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.
The fact that velociraptors were actually small has never changed, there was a known species that was big enough to actually resemble the ones in the film, Deinonychus, but the film's creators decided Velociraptor sounded cooler, I guess?

And the fact that we didn't have the fossils or technology to actually see all the fossilised dinosaur feathers paleontologists are now able to see back in the 80s is probably not going to somehow reverse. And in fact, more generally "oh, look, scientists got a whole shit-ton of new data and have some very different theories now, I guess we should completely ignore anything scientists say and just do whatever because who cares I bet the science will change again anyway" is a shit opinion.
 

XDSkyFreak

New member
Mar 2, 2013
154
0
0
Well ... you know what? I don't really care what the dinos sport, feathers or scales, as long as they are menacing and look good and "predatory" enough. Make them reptiles, make them birds, it doesn't matter. What matters is that they look cool and menacing.

As for the lightsaber ... you know what? No one is against adding a cross-guard to a lightsaber. The problem with what they did here is that even in the terms of the universe itself, it makes no sense for something as stupid like that to exist! Why the fuck 2 extra blades as a cross-guard? why not a cross-guard that is made from lightsaber resistant material? Oh yeah, so called SW fans, there are such things as ores that lightsabers can't cut through: Cortosis, which actually shorts out lightsaber and makes them useless for a few minutes (incidentally, this is the only one that would work as a cross-guard, as with all the others they would simply disrupt the blade, but once it was pushed pas the metal the blade would extend back to normal size); Mandalorian Iron; Phrik; Songsteel (might also work, I remember a songsteel blade was used once in a duel with a lightsaber meaning it could "catch" the lightsaber blade). So why not use that? Why go for the retarded suicidal "I will chop off my own hands with this piece of shit aproach"? Because it looks cool? Yeah, I'm sure you will look oh so cool when 2 seconds into the duel you sudenly see your hand flop to the ground ... maybe your oponent will take pity on you and offer you a cybernetic hand and a normal lightsaber so you can actualy fight. Even Maul's 2 headed lightsaber, though impractical, was still a plausible design that could function (IMO, it only needed the hilt to be a bit longer and cortosis/songsteel plated)... but this crap? Not even a long time ago in a galaxy far far away ... (and yeah, I too want to see a trailer that is more than random images and blinky lights, one that would actually tell me what the story will be like)

Also let's not forget this: http://9gag.com/gag/aMbvBdV?ref=fsidebar
 

Cybylt

New member
Aug 13, 2009
284
0
0
XDSkyFreak said:
Well ... you know what? I don't really care what the dinos sport, feathers or scales, as long as they are menacing and look good and "predatory" enough. Make them reptiles, make them birds, it doesn't matter. What matters is that they look cool and menacing.

As for the lightsaber ... you know what? No one is against adding a cross-guard to a lightsaber. The problem with what they did here is that even in the terms of the universe itself, it makes no sense for something as stupid like that to exist! Why the fuck 2 extra blades as a cross-guard? why not a cross-guard that is made from lightsaber resistant material? Oh yeah, so called SW fans, there are such things as ores that lightsabers can't cut through: Cortosis, which actually shorts out lightsaber and makes them useless for a few minutes (incidentally, this is the only one that would work as a cross-guard, as with all the others they would simply disrupt the blade, but once it was pushed pas the metal the blade would extend back to normal size); Mandalorian Iron; Phrik; Songsteel (might also work, I remember a songsteel blade was used once in a duel with a lightsaber meaning it could "catch" the lightsaber blade).


So why not use that? Why go for the retarded suicidal "I will chop off my own hands with this piece of shit aproach"? Because it looks cool? Yeah, I'm sure you will look oh so cool when 2 seconds into the duel you sudenly see your hand flop to the ground ... maybe your oponent will take pity on you and offer you a cybernetic hand and a normal lightsaber so you can actualy fight. Even Maul's 2 headed lightsaber, though impractical, was still a plausible design that could function (IMO, it only needed the hilt to be a bit longer and cortosis/songsteel plated)... but this crap? Not even a long time ago in a galaxy far far away ... (and yeah, I too want to see a trailer that is more than random images and blinky lights, one that would actually tell me what the story will be like)

Also let's not forget this: http://9gag.com/gag/aMbvBdV?ref=fsidebar
There's the possibility that the thing is just a hunk of crap made by a guy who is decades removed from the knowledge of making a lightsaber with a functioning complete circruit and it's just vents re-purposed into a guard. Would also explain the wavering, thin blade.

On dinofeathers, what is suspension of disbelief. Or are people really anal-retentive on this one thing like they were "100% brain power" in an action movie or how gravity functions when put under scrutiny in...err... Gravity.
 

Drake Barrow

New member
Jan 10, 2010
107
0
0
Cybylt said:
XDSkyFreak said:
Well ... you know what? I don't really care what the dinos sport, feathers or scales, as long as they are menacing and look good and "predatory" enough. Make them reptiles, make them birds, it doesn't matter. What matters is that they look cool and menacing.

As for the lightsaber ... you know what? No one is against adding a cross-guard to a lightsaber. The problem with what they did here is that even in the terms of the universe itself, it makes no sense for something as stupid like that to exist! Why the fuck 2 extra blades as a cross-guard? why not a cross-guard that is made from lightsaber resistant material? Oh yeah, so called SW fans, there are such things as ores that lightsabers can't cut through: Cortosis, which actually shorts out lightsaber and makes them useless for a few minutes (incidentally, this is the only one that would work as a cross-guard, as with all the others they would simply disrupt the blade, but once it was pushed pas the metal the blade would extend back to normal size); Mandalorian Iron; Phrik; Songsteel (might also work, I remember a songsteel blade was used once in a duel with a lightsaber meaning it could "catch" the lightsaber blade).


So why not use that? Why go for the retarded suicidal "I will chop off my own hands with this piece of shit aproach"? Because it looks cool? Yeah, I'm sure you will look oh so cool when 2 seconds into the duel you sudenly see your hand flop to the ground ... maybe your oponent will take pity on you and offer you a cybernetic hand and a normal lightsaber so you can actualy fight. Even Maul's 2 headed lightsaber, though impractical, was still a plausible design that could function (IMO, it only needed the hilt to be a bit longer and cortosis/songsteel plated)... but this crap? Not even a long time ago in a galaxy far far away ... (and yeah, I too want to see a trailer that is more than random images and blinky lights, one that would actually tell me what the story will be like)

Also let's not forget this: http://9gag.com/gag/aMbvBdV?ref=fsidebar
There's the possibility that the thing is just a hunk of crap made by a guy who is decades removed from the knowledge of making a lightsaber with a functioning complete circruit and it's just vents re-purposed into a guard. Would also explain the wavering, thin blade.

On dinofeathers, what is suspension of disbelief. Or are people really anal-retentive on this one thing like they were "100% brain power" in an action movie or how gravity functions when put under scrutiny in...err... Gravity.
Welcome to the Internet, you must be new here. :)

More seriously, yes, you're correct. Not only are we getting more expression of anal retention, the argument has evolved. Originally the arguments tended toward enjoying a film or TV show as what it is - a film or TV show. The debunking of cinema science (the lack thereof) wasn't against the idea that you could sit back and have fun with it. "Lightsabers are barely possible, but so impractical as to be stupid. But who cares? These are space wizards with laser swords! Enjoy!"

Now the arguments we get throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a film touches on real science, or uses a popular misconception as a plot point, the whole thing is regarded as worthless. I've seen a couple responses on this thread stating they won't see the new Jurassic Park because of the scientific inaccuracy of the dinosaurs. We've had threads about that film Lucy which went on and on about the 10% brain myth and how it ruined the film. Your example about Gravity holds weight (pun intended). I even remember Moviebob taking this stance himself, when he tore into the Robocop remake for the film implying that Murphy had a soul or human spirit.

This isn't without merit, but FFS, the genres "Fantasy" and "Science Fiction" have very specific words involved in them which denote them as fiction. We do seem to be losing our suspension of disbelief, and that is a bit worrisome to me. Not in the "world's going to end" way, just in the notion that it's going to shoot fiction in the foot and leave it limping.

Anyway, rant over.
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,316
0
0
Rowan93 said:
I guess we should completely ignore anything scientists say and just do whatever because who cares I bet the science will change again anyway" is a shit opinion.
It's not when it does all the time still. Blindly accepting something that 'changes like the wind' at face value is pretty silly, and almost religious sounding in it's inane devotion. Them finding one or a few with feathers doesn't mean they all did, or they always had them. The real truth is we won't ever know for sure, because time destroys too much. This is also why we won't ever be able to actually clone them as well.
 

Cybylt

New member
Aug 13, 2009
284
0
0
Drake Barrow said:
Welcome to the Internet, you must be new here. :)

More seriously, yes, you're correct. Not only are we getting more expression of anal retention, the argument has evolved. Originally the arguments tended toward enjoying a film or TV show as what it is - a film or TV show. The debunking of cinema science (the lack thereof) wasn't against the idea that you could sit back and have fun with it. "Lightsabers are barely possible, but so impractical as to be stupid. But who cares? These are space wizards with laser swords! Enjoy!"

Now the arguments we get throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a film touches on real science, or uses a popular misconception as a plot point, the whole thing is regarded as worthless. I've seen a couple responses on this thread stating they won't see the new Jurassic Park because of the scientific inaccuracy of the dinosaurs. We've had threads about that film Lucy which went on and on about the 10% brain myth and how it ruined the film. Your example about Gravity holds weight (pun intended). I even remember Moviebob taking this stance himself, when he tore into the Robocop remake for the film implying that Murphy had a soul or human spirit.

This isn't without merit, but FFS, the genres "Fantasy" and "Science Fiction" have very specific words involved in them which denote them as fiction. We do seem to be losing our suspension of disbelief, and that is a bit worrisome to me. Not in the "world's going to end" way, just in the notion that it's going to shoot fiction in the foot and leave it limping.

Anyway, rant over.
I do my best :D

Well of course they aren't going to watch the movie. How else will they stand up for the factoid they learned in middle school that's likely the only thing they remember about dinosaurs off hand?
 

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
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.
Well, not having the metal things wouldn't make any sense from a design perspective either, because lasers doesn't tend to split off in three different directions. But there's always the theory that light is reflected from the main saber in the interior of the hilt, meaning the light continues under the metal.

Anomynous 167 said:
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.
There's no such thing as a careless Jedi, they're called "Padawans".
 

ZippyDSMlee

New member
Sep 1, 2007
3,959
0
0
I dunno Dragon Ball has alot of odd character designs to site MR Popo as completely racist is a bit much. I've always seen him as Persian/Arabian/Mediterranean even a possibly alien one. Looking at the overall interpretation of the character I like to think of him as a more comical less skilled Yoda type.
 

Rowan93

New member
Aug 25, 2011
485
0
0
xPixelatedx said:
Rowan93 said:
I guess we should completely ignore anything scientists say and just do whatever because who cares I bet the science will change again anyway" is a shit opinion.
It's not when it does all the time still. Blindly accepting something that 'changes like the wind' at face value is pretty silly, and almost religious sounding in it's inane devotion. Them finding one or a few with feathers doesn't mean they all did, or they always had them. The real truth is we won't ever know for sure, because time destroys too much. This is also why we won't ever be able to actually clone them as well.
It doesn't "change like the wind", the changes happen when a big pile of new evidence arrives and that doesn't happen often, that was part of my point. At least the species of which we've found feathered specimens have been irrefutably proven to have feathers, because you just don't get random specimens with feathers in a species that doesn't. And claiming time destroys too much for us to ever know for sure is just denying all the fossils and the work that's been done on them.