The Big Picture: Dinosaur Exodus

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I'm with you on the Dinosaur thing. We are probably roughly the same age so that might explain that...
On the other hand whilst I enjoyed the Star Wars trailer I did not like the Claymore-eque light sabre. Looks like it would have very few practical uses and end up hurting the wielder more than his opponent.
Other than that. I get those feathers off mah dinos!

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

Same. It's all about the design. And there's all kinds of potential for interesting ways to represent how they use those feathers. Communication, for example. Body language is a huge form of communication for most animals and having feathers provides interesting ways to utilize that.

Also, what's really wrong with the claymore lightsaber is the utter lack of functionality of those two extra blades. Also, think about how lightsabers are used. Blades capable of cutting through damn near anything sticking out at the sides like that are highly likely to result in injury to the user. At least Darth Maul's double lightsaber had a functionality to it. It's the kind of thing you could easily train yourself to use efficiently in a way that would surprise and bewilder an unprepared enemy. The claymore lightsaber limits functionality for no real benefit.

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...

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

I definitely agree with you on this: especially seeing that what Paleontology calls "Velociraptors" were about the size of a chicken . Quite frankly, whether those clever girls are feathered or not is the least of the issues with the films.

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.

I'm inclined to say that we should just accept that "Velociraptor" has a pop-culture significance beyond scientific specifics. Let continuity be continuous.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/you-say-velociraptor-i-say-deinonychus-33789870/?no-ist=

EDIT: I have been trying to pronounce "Deinonychus" in any way that isn't "Dino-Knickers". I can't manage it. Style > Scientific accuracy

Chuppi:
You see.....that´s where the quote would have stoped 25 Years ago.

25 years ago the prequels didn't happen. This isn't going to break the movie for me, I just find it funny (but not in a No More Heroes kind of way. they actually got this design right). then I have seen people bitching, and defending it in a very butt hurt way and that is like catnip for me ;)

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

This cannot be repeated often enough.

Bob can rest easy because Jurassic Park has a rare "get out of science free card" narrative that allows them to do pretty much whatever they want (within the context of dinosaur anatomy and behavior anyway). Just like continuity errors in the Matrix can be explained as glitches or awkward game mechanics in Assassin's Creed can be explained as rendering features within the Animus.

I'm 100% committed to rendering dinosaurs in film as scientifically accurately as possible, especially when it contradicts the preconceptions of the public. But Jurassic Park's dinosaurs aren't actually dinosaurs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Aliasi:
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?

Sylocat:

Aliasi:
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:

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?

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? 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.

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.

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.
image

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

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.

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?

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 bitch 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.

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.

:/

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?

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.

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..

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.

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.

So... MovieBob is still rife with nostalgia it seems.

Nothing ever changes I guess >.>

[deleted]

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:

(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.)

Anyways, back to the light saber thing. the guy I always trust to know something about swords since he owns the real things made a vid about this. And guess what? The light saber claymore makes MORE sense then a lightsaber without a guard design. Who would have thunk!

So the new design has made an IMPROVEMENT to the overall design.

So there!

Feather dinosaurs can work, just make them have better feathers. For instance, only along the back, or with cool colors that remind the viewer of eagles or hawks rather than parakeets.

As for the lightsaber, it does look cool, but I get the feeling that's the only real purpose for the crossguard. Darth Maul used all two of his blades to devastating effect, if this guy uses all three in a non-stupid way I'll be incredibly impressed.

Actually, now that I think about it, just the two little blades would make a great axe-like weapon, perhaps for close quarters.

I thought the reason none of the dinosaurs had feathers in Jurassic Park was because they were spliced with frog DNA.

P-89 Scorpion:
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.

Well, they wouldn't be Arabs either; according to both Jewish and Muslim tradition (if I recall correctly), Arabs are descendants of either Abraham's first son Ishmael or Isaac's son Esau, or both. Egypt would have had to already be established as a kingdom (if not an empire) by that point. And I don't know what archaeologists have to say about that, but if you're already making a movie about an event from the Hebrew bible that also isn't backed up by archaeological evidence, you might as well be consistent.

Making the Egyptians black would have been problematic too, though, for similar reasons. It's a pity you can only ever make the bad guys in a movie white anymore, but maybe Western society should take that as an incentive to improve race relations to the point where it's not a problem anymore.

I don't know what Bob's talking about, I think the newer feathered dinosaurs look just as awesome as the older reptilian ones. Maybe even moreso.

I guess it is a tad disappointing that Jurassic World decided not to be scientifically accurate in this regard, but it's not as if it's surprising. I would go as far as to say it should have been expected. I can't think of a single Hollywood film in recent history that gets its science entirely correct. Most don't try, because they would rather put energy into being entertaining, because entertainment is the entire point of a Hollywood film. And nobody cares, usually. Nobody lets scientific inaccuracies ruin a good film for them. Nobody hates Gravity because the orbits are wrong, nobody has a problem with Avengers because the Iron Man suit is technically impossible. So it seems odd to me that people would be freaking out about this.

The thing is it's not even a plot hole or anything like that. The fact that the dinosaurs look like this makes perfect sense, because they technically aren't even dinosaurs. According to the first movie, they're mostly frogs, amphibians, which have nothing resembling feathers. Only some of their dna is from dinosaurs. The scientists in the film mixed the two until they got what they thought looked like dinosaurs, which is what we thought they looked like back then. The fact that real dinosaurs didn't actually look like that doesn't change a thing.

Honestly, making the dinosaurs feathery would arguably go against continuity, because this series has already established what their dinosaurs look like, and you can't just change that because of science that happened outside the series' universe. Of course, if they explained why they looked different (maybe they were able to use more dinosaur dna, or they used a different process or something) would easily fix that problem.

Cpt. Slow:
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? 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.

Now now now, Bob didn't attack Piet outright; he said the issue would be worth debating, which is fair. (if he did attack Piet and Sint outright I would have a thing or two to say about the worship of the American founding fathers and the Confederate generals in the south). But I welcome him to enter that debate and have his say, as long as he does his homework and enters it with an open mind...

Anyway... From what the internet tells me T-rex probably didn't have true fathers anyway: but rather spiny protofeathers: and then there's also the point that large animals like elephants and rhino's usually have a naked skin. So I think it would be safe to depict T-rex as featherless with perhaps a few spikes on it's head...

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

Yep, pretty much what I was going to say. Crichton's books almost go out of their way to demonstrate that these aren't real dinosaurs, they aren't even true clones of real dinosaurs, they're just genetic jigsaws. Hell, in Lost World we see they're having trouble raising young simply because they have no idea how, being created in a lab means they have neither inherent parental instincts nor experience of their own upbringing to draw from. They just lay eggs anywhere and more often than not end up trampling over them because they forgot they were there.
Thats why I don't mind the increasingly inaccurate portrayal of dinos, and I don't mind the new film's idea for a genetic hybrid super-saur. Its just a logical extension of the message and themes from the books and films

Here's my take on the dinosaurs with feathers thing in regards to Jurassic Park -

I think it was more important for the filmmakers to make their dinosaurs consistent throughout the movies than it was to be scientifically accurate. The dinosaurs have to look basically the same as they did in the first movie, otherwise plot questions start popping up as to why exactly they look different now. What would the plot explanation be for why the genetically resurrected dinosaurs suddenly have feathers when they didn't in the previous 3 movies?

I also think that there's enough in movie justification that explains that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are not what dinosaurs actually were and looked like. In the first movie (and the book) it's explained that the dinosaur DNA that they extracted from mosquitoes was slightly corrupted and that they had to fill in holes in the DNA with the DNA of other animals, specifically frogs (which is why the dinosaurs were able to change sex even though they were all created to be female). Frogs don't have feathers, so the simple explanation as to why the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park don't have features like their real life counterparts probably did is because they're all part frog.

given that the dinosaurs were already some kind of frog hybrid the story could totally work in why they have no feathers and retain its continuity.

on exodus, I would say a more glaring discrepancy is the fact that the story of exodus and the enslavement of the Hebrew people as a theory all together has come under fire in contemporary archaeology although to talk about it makes people jump down your throat with accusations of anti antisemitism.

Sorry, Bob, but those Dinosaurs in the clips you showed? Badass.
The look awesome. Maybe tone down the color a bit, especially in predators, and it would totally work.
Can't look sillier than that spitting dinosaurs collar back in the first movie.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.