|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Oct 22, 2019 2:45:12 GMT 5
In favor of the mosasaur. creature386 So let me see if I got this straight. Let's say a comic book demonstrates that one of its characters is an X buster. The corresponding TV show says that character is a Y buster. A guidebook (i.e. a "manual") says the person is a Z buster. The comic and the TV show trump the guidebook, and so the character is either an X or Y buster. Correct? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 22, 2019 3:00:43 GMT 5
Provided that the feat is unambiguous enough, yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Oct 22, 2019 17:42:30 GMT 5
That mosasaur is such a bafflingly huge mess it completely destroyed the JW franchise. Almost every estimate is just so off any reasonable mark that I have to agree this is largely a no contest. That said, here is a great little read that puts the mosamonster at 30m mark and gives a win to Meg. deathbattlefanon.fandom.com/wiki/The_Meg_vs._Mosasaurus_(Jurassic_World) |
|
|
|
Post by Verdugo on Oct 22, 2019 18:53:28 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. Isn't the 100 ft-ish length is for the first JW one not the FK? Anyway, i have tried doing some rough estimates myself based on this shot  Assuming the dude is 1.7 m tall (which is fairly conservative), i got a head length of ~ 8.3 m. If i want to be 'conservative' and use realistic skull length to total length ratio (1.7/12.2 from P-dragon skeleton), i'll get a TL of 60 m. If i want to be less 'conservative' use the rule-of-thumb ratio 1/10, i'll get a TL of 83 m. It's still Kaiju size regardless. Even just by looking at these shots from FK:  And compare those to the first one:  You can clearly see how much it has grown |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 22, 2019 19:34:43 GMT 5
That was sure a fun read. Well, except for the confusion between archaeology and paleontology at one point, but this is just a minor pet peeve of mine. I'm divided on giving away the ending. It might be a spoiler for some, but for others, it might be an intriguing teaser. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 22, 2019 19:42:55 GMT 5
Well, except for the confusion between archaeology and paleontology at one point, but this is just a minor pet peeve of mine. Ah yes, a classic. A few months ago, at our excavation: People come by, asking "are you guys achaeologists?" Answer, everybody at once "No!!!" |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Oct 22, 2019 19:52:23 GMT 5
Well, except for the confusion between archaeology and paleontology at one point, but this is just a minor pet peeve of mine. Ah yes, a classic. A few months ago, at our excavation: People come by, asking "are you guys achaeologists?" Answer, everybody at once "No!!!" The picture in my head.  In all fairness, these people might not have been able to guess the material you are working with. Maybe they just saw you digging stuff. Most people who confuse the two have no such excuse. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 22, 2019 20:32:06 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? You're again using exaggerated examples, which are true but I was specifically looking at the grey zone about this. Nonetheless, I've given my answer, so need to ponder about this that long. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 22, 2019 21:44:05 GMT 5
Again, it doesn’t matter how exaggerated the examples are, it doesn’t make them any less valid, they are exaggerated simply to illustrate the principle more readily.
And the dire wolf example isn’t even exaggerated, the size ratio is really about the same as in this case.
I’m not pondering about your answer, feel free to favour whoever you want. At my lower end estimate for the mosasaur (based on the 2 m shark, around 26 m or maybe a little less if the skull is proportionately larger) I would tend to say the meg would probably win (if it’s the size I got the impression it was, a little over 20 m)
I’m just pointing out that what is shown in, depicted in or otherwise constituting a film, or other work, is an objectively quantifiable observation (though not necessarily with high precision, as the mosasaur example demonstrates), and not contingent on what the author or anyone else claims about it. We are primarily a forum about scientific subjects. This relates to the nature of facts, and that they cannot just be altered because someone says so, so I find it relevant, even if it is media studies and not zoology.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 24, 2019 1:22:46 GMT 5
The MEG Megalodon would make short work of the Mosasaurus depicted in the first Jurassic World film. No ifs and buts. The MEG Megalodon tore through a nuclear submarine, toppled a huge research vessel, and tolerated a missile impact (3 distinct events). Therefore, exceedingly strong creature by any measure - definitely fiction territory. Jurassic World II film depict a substantially bigger Mosasaurus though. However, WE do not know much about this creature's strength and durability. --- Dimensions of the MEG Megalodon at a glance.      ---  It does look like the MEG Megalodon can kill even the gigantic Mosasaurus in view of how strong it is and how much it can slice through with a single bite of-course. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 24, 2019 2:45:12 GMT 5
Life So what you're saying is the Mosasaurus would be killed with one bite and is outclassed too far in the durability aspect to win?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 24, 2019 3:26:44 GMT 5
Hmm interesting, based off of those pictures, 'the meg' looks more oversized than I thought. I had the impression grey thought it was just slightly oversized, but that clearly doesn’t seem to be the case if we go by that titlepic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 24, 2019 20:27:10 GMT 5
LifeSo what you're saying is the Mosasaurus would be killed with one bite and is outclassed too far in the durability aspect to win? Seems like it. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 24, 2019 20:40:14 GMT 5
Life So what you're saying is the Mosasaurus would be killed with one bite and is outclassed too far in the durability aspect to win? Seems like it. I can understand your logic against some of the smaller mosasaurs, but wouldn't the mosasaur that makes a humpback whale look like a goldfish be a bit too large, strong and durable itself, even to the point of all those principles reversing in favor of the mosasaur? |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 24, 2019 20:50:08 GMT 5
I can understand your logic against some of the smaller mosasaurs, but wouldn't the mosasaur that makes a humpback whale look like a goldfish be a bit too large, strong and durable itself, even to the point of all those principles reversing in favor of the mosasaur? Movie shots have fooled many people actually. If you understand photography, you will know how easy it is to manipulate a picture and contents within. Mosasaurus shown in Jurassic World II is nowhere close to being that big. In fact, see my comparison above - very realistic. But if you are considering kaiju-esque portrayals of Mosasaurus then WE should consider similar portrayals of the MEG Megalodon to be FAIR. For example:-  Doesn't look good for Mosasaurus. |
|
