The Big Picture: Dinosaur Exodus

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Dinosaur Exodus

Real dinosaurs aren't exactly like the kind we see in Jurassic Park, and that's kind of a bummer.

Watch Video

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.

Can't say I agree with you Bob, I think feather dinosaurs look badass.

Mary Beth Mercuri:
Can't say I agree with you Bob, I think feather dinosaurs look badass.

Chernobyl Parrots. Sounds like we got the next Sharknado in the horizon.

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.

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.

Well Bob the majority agree with you that dinosaurs looking like mutant chicken suck and the paleontologist community is finding out that the hard way with a huge decline in interest of students taking up the field that was never that big in the first place.

As to the Exodus film it's a no win situation could you image a film with Israeli actors killing lots of Arabs? it would not only bomb in the US and Europe but would be banned nearly everywhere with a large Muslim population.

I've seen all kinds of wacky crap depicted as a lightsaber, and as I stopped caring about Star Wars quite a while ago, the claymore seems pretty passable.

Feathered dinosaurs, though? Apparently truth really is stranger than fiction, see also Barrerleye Fish. That might be how they really looked, but damned if it doesn't look stupid. Only things they're missing are makeup and puffy wigs to look like hulking lizard-clowns.

Ooh, maybe they're hoping for the coulrophobia angle to help with the intimidation factor?

Rawbeard:
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.

My opinion on this is simple:

Reality will not allow the continuation of fantasies for long and one must be able to set aside their fantasies to accept reality. In other words, while I can understand the nostalgia of old fantasies, one must face facts and our media is the best way to have people do that.

As such, if one makes a movie with the classic reptilian dinosaurs, there should be a counter force from people with a massive surge of works explaining why it's wrong.

Anomynous 167:
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.

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.

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 expect. Hammond rejects this, but mostly because of the expense. In any event, reproducing prehistory accurately was never their mission statement.

BigTuk:
Imagine a T-rex with a colloration more akin to a raven, or an eagle....

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.

Claymore lightsaber would actually be more functional than normal lightsabers, except you are way more likely to cut yourself with it. Put a little thing of metal underneath and it is awesome.

As for dinosaurs you are about as wrong as you can be. Your views that dinosaurs are awesome the way they look basically dates back to Jurassic Park. It is incumbent on the media to make reality awesome, which means that reality should be depicted as accurately as possible while still fitting the story in fiction. People get way more information than they should from movies like that, which is why real scientists criticize them for accuracy. If they get it wrong that means a lot of people will think incorrect things about the subject. It isn't to reign in crazy awesome stuff it is to make sure the public is aware of the real thing.

BTW T-Rex was always a mutant chicken, just because they were wrong before doesn't mean they should be right now.

I always think of Star Wars and Jurassic Park in very similar terms - they were both 'classic films with John Williams music that I loved in my childhood'. So given the way Star Wars was treated in its "special" editions I almost expected a Jurassic Park re-release with feathered dinosaurs.

I'm glad they're staying reptilian for the next film. Not because I think the lizard look is inherently more awesome - I'd get used to feathers if exposed to them for a while - but because that's how they've been established in this franchise.

Rawbeard:
of course a claymore lightsaber looks badass

You see.....thatīs where the quote would have stoped 25 Years ago.
People back then werenīt so picky, they didnīt mind if it was practical or scientifically accurate.
Star Wars has always been more of a fairy tale than scientifically accurat fiction, so in my oppinion,
they can add every kind of cool looking nonsense, as long as they donīt bore me, like they did with the last three movies.

You know why I'm glad they don't have feathers?

Continuity.

It would be moronic to have three movies of lizard monsters to switch over to Chernobyl parrots. You can't write your way out of it. Sure, one or two killer parrots, but no all of them.

That was one of my grips with the 2nd and 3rd movies (aside from the fact the 3rd one just sucked), the raptors looked different. I can understand if it's a different breed, but seriously... stuff doesn't know it's in a sequel...

It's like the Star Wars prequels. I always feel that chronologically, technology regresses in that franchise because so much changes in the prequels.

Mary Beth Mercuri:
Can't say I agree with you Bob, I think feather dinosaurs look 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.

Probably European Robins have always eaten insects and seeds since a few amphibians decided to be less soft.

The thing I've always wondered was; how did a cold blooded reptile evolve into the Dinosaurs which became the warm blooded birds?

Feathered Dinosaurs are awesome. It's just perhaps they shouldn't be depicted as peacocks.

Say what you will, chickens can be viscous bastards, and their appetite has no end, so the idea of being chased by a chicken with teeth the size of a JCB would be the stuff of my most awesome nightmares.

Also, I am definitely on team Claymore lightsaber. It just looks cool, and rule of cool is all that really matters in sci-fi as soft as Star Wars. Even then, if you really want to get anal about it, just about the only thing that doesn't get cut easily by a lightsaber blade is another lightsaber blade, so what else are they supposed to make a cross guard out of?

I mean, it's not as cool as seeing Maul's double-bladed saber in action for the first time, but neither is it anywhere near as goofy looking as Count Dooku's crooked-penis saber.

Falseprophet:
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.

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.

It's actually a really smart way of getting Bob's "traditional", "awesome" dinosaurs into the story. The explanation makes sense scientifically(to the same degree that cloning dinosaurs makes sense scientifically, anyway), and it shows how the Park's creators are more interested in making money than they are in furthering science. There's really no debate to be had here, Crichton covered his bases.

From what I understand T-Rexes probabably didn't actually have feathers (at least adult ones) much like the largest land mammals of today don't have fur (like elephants and rhinos) the larger dinosaurs likely didn't have feathers otherwise they would have overheated in the balmy Jurassic/ Cretaceous climate. Velociraptors on the other hand being quite small (in fact much smaller than depicted in the Jurassic Park movies) almost certainly did.

And yes claymore lightsaber= awesome!

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 several issue with this Bob:

1. Feathered Dinosaurs CAN be made AWESOME looking. It DEPENDS on the ART department to do that. But it CAN be done. They can look BETTER and more "badass" then Dinos of the past.

2. You are the one winning here. Not me.
A) Pacific Rim
B) Superhero movies
C) Fury
D) Another movie with Dinosaurs as monsters and not animals...

Seriously, Pacific Rim is absolutely insane.
Fury, whilst a good movie, is about as accurate as a flying brick.

But THESE things are blockbusters and you celebrate them and you get them. I dont get what I want, the very thing you are complaining about

3. I too grew up with Jurassic Park. The books and then the movies. It inspired my love for extinct creatures of all shapes, sizes and periods. It helped my love of history too.
But I moved on with my tastes. A movie/series about the ANIMALS we call dinosaurs, rather then the MONSTERS (lol) called Dinosaurs would interest me MORE.
I want to see animals at this point. Not monsters. And have it accurate.

ANd no, I can never accept that animals can overrun an obviously well run and secured park filled with ARMED security and possibly armor. That is beyond fantasy for me at this point. It was somewhat acceptable in Jurassic Park 1, it was an unfinished, not that well done park. Not so much in 2 and 3.
The mutants part is no excuse. No creature on this planet can survive a direct encounter with an APC/Tank/Heavily armed men.

"Chernobyl Parrots" Dibs on the band name!
IDK about Bob, but I believe I saw plenty of non-white actors in those scenes from EXODUS. Even the Pharoah looks Arabic to me.

Anomynous 167:

Rawbeard:
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.

I concur! They might have even invented at least one new lightsaber fighting style to use the two smaller blades to deflect opponent's strikes, too. Besides, lightsabers typically are held with two hands anyway.

There's an xkcd comic strip that nicely illustrates the fallacy in Bob's thinking on dinosaurs:

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!

shadowmagus:
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.

well the laser swords are possible... with plasma instead of light... and a continuous power source Ž.Ž

Anyway

I shouldn't have laughed as hard in this episode as I think I did. But dear lord XD

I personally think that Jurassic Park should stick to the older image of dinosaurs so that the speciation of dinosaurs in the series as a whole remains somewhat consistent.

As for the Moses issue, I get what you are saying and intellectually I agree but my hear says "Christian Bale as Moses? I must see this".

It's certainly easy to write why the dinosaurs don't have feathers if you give it some thought. For one the DNA samples from the mosquitoes preserved in amber obviously deteriorated over time (92-96% preserved DNA samples I believe it was mentioned in JP? which was proven highly unlikely for a such sample to be found in real life) and the result of that missing DNA could be incomplete skin genetics. Combine that with the genetics of the chosen carrier that likely end up being dominant to a majority of the dinosaur's genes (or filling in for the missing genes) and what you get is what you see as their best outcome of a dinosaur - Featherless, yet matches the scale and behavior we anticipated (for the most part).

you know, fluffy or not, a Tyrannosaurus Rex was still an alpha predator the size of an Elephant with a mouth full of railroad spike sized teeth, it would look rather scary either way. I wish there were fossils of it well preserved enough to show us what its plumage actually looked like, whether it looked like a giant Emu or maybe had just a crest around its neck or something. Besides, we have an in universe justification for the dinos not having feathers, the DNA is 65 million years old! IT had degraded over time and geneticists did their best to repair it with genes from animals they thought were related, a side effect of which being they lost most or all of their plumage. There you go.

I'm fine with JP dinos looking like they do. Though the "feathers" thing isn't that new and was pretty well established by the time they made the first one. I'd rather the movies be somewhat visually consistent, though.

Anomynous 167:
Just think of how many Jedi hands could be saved.

In the movies? 0.

My problem, though, isn't practicality. I've accepted laser swords. I'm accepted double laser swords. They look cool.

This looks dumb. I know it's an arbitrary line, but it's space fantasy where space wizards swing space laser swords at each other. Darth Maul's saber didn't make me laugh out loud (though his makeup did), the light "claymore" does.

Chuppi:

You see.....thatīs where the quote would have stoped 25 Years ago.

Not really. There have been great lightsaber arguments my entire life. I'm in my thirties, by the way, I'll let you decide if I was alive 25 years ago.

scw55:

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.

When I bite into a chicken sandwich it fills me with joy to know how the mighty have fallen.

Star Wars was never about the writing or the story, so a claymore lightsabre is good in my books. I hope the rest of the film is as ridiculous.

Maybe a dinosaur with feathers can look good, not that one though. It's like they tried designing a really camp parrot and increasing his size fifty times over.

While I'm a little on the reptile look for Jurassic Park, I was watching the first one yesterday and I recall that they spliced the DNA with that of a toad I think, I mean its not a full proof theory but it makes a little sense. That and feathers must be a pain in the "you know what" to make in CGI without looking cheesy.

Feathered dinosaurs are cool! And it's not just feathers, a lot of the raptors in the movies is wrong, anatomy-wise... Like the position of their arms.

jFr[e]ak93:
You know why I'm glad they don't have feathers?

Continuity.

It would be moronic to have three movies of lizard monsters to switch over to Chernobyl parrots. You can't write your way out of it. Sure, one or two killer parrots, but no all of them.

That was one of my grips with the 2nd and 3rd movies (aside from the fact the 3rd one just sucked), the raptors looked different. I can understand if it's a different breed, but seriously... stuff doesn't know it's in a sequel...

You could always explain they have superior technology now, or have found more DNA and can make more accurate dinosaurs without reptile/amphibian DNA.
(Also the dinosaurs in the 2nd and the 3rd movies were on a different island, they could have had different breeds or experiments going on there.)

I thought Mr. Popo was a genie...

Any who, I can understand your dislike of the feathery dinosaurs, Bob. I have the same sort of gripe that the dinosaurs won't even be real props in this movie. I dislike CG when the models and animatronics in Jurassic Park looked as good as they did.

Robot Number V:

Falseprophet:
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.

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.

It's actually a really smart way of getting Bob's "traditional", "awesome" dinosaurs into the story. The explanation makes sense scientifically(to the same degree that cloning dinosaurs makes sense scientifically, anyway), and it shows how the Park's creators are more interested in making money than they are in furthering science. There's really no debate to be had here, Crichton covered his bases.

100% agree to all of this. Only came to add that if people want complete accuracy from anything in the Jurassic Park franchise then someone's going to have to reduce those Velociraptors to the size of chickens. That's how you make prehistoric movie monsters less scary, Bob. Not by adding feathers, but by correcting their sizes.

Also, Dinosaur Island has a completely unimpressive trailer showing off an uninspired concept with underwhelming CGI, but damn I actually really like the colorful, feathered look of their dinosaurs. Their T-rex actually doesn't look any less threatening - if anything it looks faster and like it means war!

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here