|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 21, 2019 20:13:50 GMT 5
 vs  Let's see if this is better than what happened on SpaceBattles! |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 21, 2019 20:24:54 GMT 5
Unfortunately, I doubt you will get as much of a lively discussion as you've got on SpaceBattles, though it's definitely going to be more intelligent (we won't spend half the time arguing if mosasaurus was a dinosaur…).
I'll give my vote when I'm home and have more time to think.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 21, 2019 20:33:09 GMT 5
^Yes, that's true. The majority of that discussion was about what the Mosasaurus was.
I'll see if I can make a size chart for this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Verdugo on Oct 21, 2019 20:57:10 GMT 5
The Mosasaur in JW is already enormous, in FK, they upsized it by a huge margin. I found a website that estimated the size of the FK Mosasaur and they got close to 90 m for this mofo and i think the estimate, while a bit rough, is quite reasonable given what we see on screen.  I mean just look at how big it is!  In the original concept, they intended to have it attacked whaling vessels and chomped down humpback whales like some goldfish     At this point, they may as well put the Mosasaur in Godzilla-verse and it wouldn't look out of place. The Meg is big but i don't think it's even that big from what i have seen on screen. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 21, 2019 21:00:51 GMT 5
^I think I can already vote now. I'm not sure how big The Meg is either, but even if it was as big as a blue whale, I doubt it would be enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 21, 2019 21:06:25 GMT 5
The thing is the JW Mosa is only outsized visually. In the promotional material it is not intended to kaiju-size.
As for the upsizing in JWFK, yes it is upsized but more like twice larger than in the first movie (the CGI model was 110-120 fy) not 90 m ish.
There is always a tendency to exaggerate the exaggeration.
I'd say that the "Meg" outbites Mosa in JW, not in FK.
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 21, 2019 21:54:35 GMT 5
Well, apparently, the original JW Mosasaur is 28 tons: www.jurassicworld.com/intel/dinosaur/mosasaurusI couldn't find anything on the Meg, but it seems to be in the 13-15 meter ballpark, likely means they're close to parity weight. I lean towards the mosasaur due to less weak spots, a larger bite, and better locomotion |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 21, 2019 23:12:48 GMT 5
^^I guess we have to decide what counts, what something is described as in promotional material, or what is actually shown in the film. I tend to find the latter a lot more important tbh. It doesn’t matter much to me whether the promotional material says it is some size, if the size shown in the actual movie is vastly different. What’s shown in the movie constitutes the "facts" in this scenario, we cannot alter those by claiming a different size elsewhere any more than we can alter real-life facts by calling them fake news. I didn’t watch fallen kingdom, but really, with the pictures verdugo posted, this is a mismatch. Wasn’t 'the Meg' supposed to be at best slightly oversized, 20-23 m-ish? The question is, is the mosasaur shown in the first JW also that big?  As you will recall, this one has a skull 170% and a mandible 181% the size of that shark it is being fed there. If the shark is 2 m long (which I think is the absolute minimum), the mandible would be 3.6 m long, over twice the length of the Penza specimen (about 12.2 m), which (based on actual Mosasaurus proportions) would make this a 26 m, 87 t Mosasaur. For the sake of realism, I like to imagine that was what they tried to show. Vastly oversized, but still the size of an actual animal. That one might make a suitable opponent for meg. But honestly, that shark doesn’t strike me as such a small juvenile, and I would assume the makers also would have intended to show an at least somewhat impressive shark. If the shark is 3 m, the mandible is 5.4 m long, and the whole animal 3 times the length of the Penza specimen, 39 m long and 295 t. While the skull length seems like it could fit what is later shown next to the Indominus, the body seen in that scene seems to be smaller than expected based on actual mosasaurus proportions. So the real animal, as shown, is likely somewhere intermediate between those two in body size, and I would guess closer to the latter in terms of skull size. And if that’s a 5 m shark, then the mandible would be 9 m long (that seems about consistent with the skull size of the mosasaur in the second movie when compared to the person), the whole animal over 5 times the length of the Penza specimen, or 65 m and 1367 t, so we can certainly get Kaiju-like sizes based on this. However that would seem to be inconsistent with the size shown in the scene later in the film, so I would tentatively say that the Mosasaur as shown in the first JW is probably not quite in such territory yet, though possibly still very large. The thing shown in the pics verdugo posted, different story. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 21, 2019 23:27:20 GMT 5
They intended at first to make it 60-70 ft but Trevorrow and Spielberg asked for it being bigger.
They also wanted it big enough to snatch the "I. rex" at the end, not that it looked like "something catching the cheek" of the fiction theropod...
But the point of the promotional material is that "in-universe" the size of the mosasaur is intended to be as such, no matter the visual perception.
But for the sake of the comparison, I agree to use the CGI sizes.
Funny enough, the mosasaur eating GWS shot (even if mote anecdotical) in the last short film JW, is back to its first, less exaggerated size.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 21, 2019 23:34:56 GMT 5
A shot where to human-prey is swallowed ^^  The CGI Pteranodon was removed.  I favor the Meg against the first JW mosasaur. The second one is visually kaijuesque. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 21, 2019 23:36:57 GMT 5
That’s the point, what is actually shown in a film is not just "perception", it’s the primary reference for how large the animal is. Other material can claim whatever it wants, if the animal is shown at a different size in the film, then the size it is in the film is the size it is shown at, and not the one claimed somewhere else. If there’s a film and someone is shown walking a chihuahua, and promotional material claims that dog is the size of an elephant, that doesn’t make it true.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 22, 2019 0:27:05 GMT 5
I agree with theropod's philosophy on this.
Show, don't tell and Death of the Author are the important keywords here (which translated mean that what we see on screen is more important than what is in the manual). This is indeed probably a mismatch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 22, 2019 0:31:42 GMT 5
No but that chihuahua comparison would ridiculous given the difference of magnitude between a chichi and an elephant is obvious to anyone, while the general public does not necessarily have the perception of the difference between a marine reptile they don't know much about either at 18 and 37 m. That is the part I am talking about.
But I agree that the production itself simply decided to exaggerate it for the wow factor and they exaggerated it even more in FK, without any care for the increased size to the public perception.
Here again because they suspect with truth that a part of the public won't be able to truly tell the difference and others won't care either.
But anyway I give it to the kaiju size mosasaur so why bothering !
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 22, 2019 0:55:09 GMT 5
Sigh. I was making an analogy with an obvious example to point out the principle, if you find that ridiculous you simply didn’t put in the two seconds to understand that. Fine then, let’s say the makers of Game of Thrones decided to claim the adult direwolves they depicted on the show are actually the size of chihuahuas. That size difference is roughly comparable to the one between an actual mosasaur and the monster depicted above. I suppose that would make it true then?
Obviously I don’t care about this matchup, it’s entirely contingent on two entirely fictional sizes that we don’t know precisely. The Jurassic world Mosasaur is clearly several times too large, whatever the precise size, and there is really nothing debatable about this (looking at the scene where it catches the Indominus, which is itself probably oversized compared to actual large theropods, and considering the largest mosasaur skulls should be at best a little longer than the largest theropod skulls). But I want to make a point about how we treat facts, primarily with regards to works of fiction/art, but applicable to all content.
If Tolkien had decided to claim The Lord of the Rings was a space opera, that wouldn’t make it true. If Leonardo da Vinci had decided to claim the Mona Lisa was a painting of Batman, that wouldn’t it true. If Bach had claimed his oboe concerto in D minor was an upbeat tavern jig, that wouldn’t make it true. Get my point now?
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 22, 2019 2:22:58 GMT 5
This is indeed probably a mismatch. In favor of who? Reading through the thread it's a bit hard to tell |
|
