|
|
Post by prehistorican on Jun 2, 2018 21:37:53 GMT 5
Damn, it's looking more and more like the Meg:A novel of Deep Terror with each spot. That underwater shot of the Meg trying to grab Jonas was good, I hope they make the rest of the CGI like that and hope to have tons more sequels. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 3, 2018 18:56:26 GMT 5
Indeed, very neat 8 gill design. I wonder why I never notice such details myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Jun 14, 2018 11:51:14 GMT 5
From Steve Altens Facebook Page. Finally! I was wondering if they were EVER even going to mention the book at all, it was time for some exposure and justice towards the book and author after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Jul 31, 2018 9:05:36 GMT 5
The final trailer has been released: youtu.be/JZrVzk3La6sMost early screening reviews say that it is a fun, entertaining and enjoyable movie so hopefully that is somewhat indicative of it doing decently in box office. movieweb.com/the-meg-movie-early-reviews-best-summer-movies/Hopefully they are all correct, I can't wait to see this in cinemas. I want to see the Megalodon kill a whale (evidenced by a huge carcass foam whale). Along with the animatronic shark possibly at the ending of the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Aug 1, 2018 15:29:49 GMT 5
Alright guys I would like to ask what do you predict about 1: This movies total box office 2: IMDB score out of /10 3: Critic Reviews My prediction: 1: Total Box Office Prediction $300-600 million 2: 4/10-8/10 on IMDB 3: "Fun movie, entertaining" "Wanted to see statham punch a shark, not disappointed" "The new shark movie we all needed" 1: $120M USA, $300M worldwide 2: 5.4/10 IMDB score 3: 36% metacritic score It's just a monster movie with meg being as realistic as the GWS from the worst Jaws movies |
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Aug 1, 2018 19:47:26 GMT 5
I agree with the monster movie part, but disagree with the realism. The design and movements seem decent enough, the only parts I would find unrealistic is the effort it expends to attack humans. The worst jaws movie had a shark that could swim with their upper torsos out of the water and had a human like sense of vengeance. So imo a bit harsh considering this is the most Carcharocles-ish Megalodon in film with believable movements and design.
|
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Aug 1, 2018 23:54:15 GMT 5
It's TOO BIG.. like, you seriously think they won't make the biggest possible stretch for this shark to make it look as bad and as big as they can?
|
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Aug 2, 2018 0:01:46 GMT 5
It should be the absolute maximum sized Megalodon at 22.8m but as Grey said this shark was based on the Vito Bertucci Megalodon jaws which were estimated at that length. These jaws have scientific credibility to them as well (though some authors believe there are some minor innacuracies).The pinnacle of Megalodon size. It even says in the synopsis/international feature video that the shark is 22.8 m and you can see a size comparison between the model and human. www.theworldslargestsharksjaw.com |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Aug 2, 2018 12:01:00 GMT 5
That jaw reconstruction is now widely dismissed and considered inaccurate and outdated.. the 23m Megalodon is a fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Aug 2, 2018 17:41:33 GMT 5
I wouldn't be as quick to completely dismiss the reconstruction. Jeremiah Clifford reconstructed a large similar sized and shaped jaw reconstruction. And of course the Summervillle Tooth indicates an large specimen based on teeth position. The "Megalodon size" thread here is quite informative.
|
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Aug 2, 2018 19:28:29 GMT 5
Do you think a 26m-30m sperm whale in "The heart of the sea" was realistic?
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 5, 2018 2:26:26 GMT 5
That jaw reconstruction is now widely dismissed and considered inaccurate and outdated.. the 23m Megalodon is a fantasy. No, comparing with the proportions associated teeth from the Yorktown Formation, Bertucci's jaws appear to be reasonably sized, and even possibly somewhat conservative (I refer to the length of the dentition, not the jaw itself). The Aurora dentition statistically comes from a 15-21 m meg comparing with white sharks upper dentitions (lower dentition gives even larger figures, probably inaccurate as explained in the poster). Comparing the widest upper crown width in this dentition with Hubbell's large tooth crown width proposes a range of of 18.5-25.9 m for the owner of such a tooth. Theoretically speaking, the 75 ft figure proposed by Bertucci (mainly using the 1 inch=10 ft rule) and used in the movie (that I will certainly enjoy) is plausible. The question is rather to know if such a titan would be an active hunter... Do you think a 26m-30m sperm whale in "The heart of the sea" was realistic? This whale is based on whalers claims, not on any scientific methodology. I do accept the statistical possibility of 24 m individuals though. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 5, 2018 2:31:35 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Aug 5, 2018 2:54:52 GMT 5
The error bars on size estimates based on single teeth are just as high as those on obscure whalers’ measurements, are they not?
|
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Aug 5, 2018 4:07:07 GMT 5
^No. Actually it's a lot higher because it's not just the "obscure whalers" measurments but the actual evidence to support them. The funny thing is, we have a whole fricking jawbone of this extant species that can extrapolate based on the actual skeletons of the creature to anywhere from 24-28m, even 30m.
But no, a single fossilised tooth from a largely mysterious species extinct from millions of years ago is a more telling data.
T.L.D.R., fanboys and their biased logic.
Sorry for raining on your parade. Hope the movie is good, but for sake of sanity, don't take it as anything more than pure fantasy.
|
|
