|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Oct 24, 2019 20:57:17 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 I can show your similar portrayals of the MEG Megalodon. Doesn't look good for Mosasaurus either way.  Okay.....this matchup isn't looking very good for the mosasaur now. The Megalodon makes the Mosasaur look goldfish-like at this point. Thanks for contribting well to this thread by the way! Taipan mostly just deleted my fantasy threads because he didn't like them for silly reasons, but I'm glad to have an admin who's more open minded. EDIT: creature386, looks like we've outclassed SpaceBattles at this point in terms of both volume and good discussion of this thread |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 24, 2019 20:58:24 GMT 5
My pleasure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 24, 2019 22:35:12 GMT 5
It is true that the very first Meg in the movie destroys a US nuclear submarine and I remember, looking at the short shot of the meg just before being obliterated by the explosion of the sub, it looks like to be around the 90 ft compared to the sub.
It is worth noting that theropod calculated the movie meg would weigh 78 tonnes at 16.8 m. The smaller meg in the movie is probably more or less around that size.
This means the 75 ft big female of the movie may weigh around 195 tonnes.
And if the very first one is around the 90 ft mark, 323 tonnes...
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 24, 2019 23:34:53 GMT 5
It is true that the very first Meg in the movie destroys a US nuclear submarine and I remember, looking at the short shot of the meg just before being obliterated by the explosion of the sub, it looks like to be around the 90 ft compared to the sub. It is worth noting that theropod calculated the movie meg would weigh 78 tonnes at 16.8 m. The smaller meg in the movie is probably more or less around that size. This means the 75 ft big female of the movie may weigh around 195 tonnes. And if the very first one is around the 90 ft mark, 323 tonnes... Interesting. TBH, as your own research is expected to show, imposing physiological considerations of the Great white shark ON Megalodon, is a problematic consideration. For some reason, I find Megalodon in the MEG movie very well done in terms of looks and implied behavior - probably close to reality. People look at modern sharks in shallow waters and imagine a shy and curious Megalodon but I really doubt this to be the case in real life. Megalodon could be a muscular brute like this: www.deviantart.com/sonic2006fan/art/The-Meg-Megalodon-Render-783412506Even a very large great white shark is a brute (e.g. DEEP BLUE). |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 25, 2019 0:07:43 GMT 5
I quite appreciate its look, even if theropod deduced some odd proportions when looking at the details, the sharks in some shots were very convincing and really looking-like some primal gigantic lamniform, looking like a porbeagle or a great white but not a copy any known taxa. There are of courses things to say but it is a nice cinematic vision. The first artistic models when the movie was planned to be released in 2006 were absolutely not intended to make something even remotely scientifically accurate :  Steve Alten hated it and far prefers the actual look, which is clearly better so cooler.  But I think the meg in real-life was more likely (but not necessarily) like the Smithsonian Museum model. But nothing says a pug-nosed very robust meg (individual or population) did not exist. It is true if something looking like the 75 ft behemoth in the movie did breathe in the oceans at some point, it would be the most dissuasive living thing ever... |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 26, 2019 0:10:51 GMT 5
But I think the meg in real-life was more likely (but not necessarily) like the Smithsonian Museum model. But nothing says a pug-nosed very robust meg (individual or population) did not exist. It is true if something looking like the 75 ft behemoth in the movie did breathe in the oceans at some point, it would be the most dissuasive living thing ever... TBH, I am not much of a fan of Museum models (many look odd and unrealistic). Fossil records of Megalodon indicate a heavily-built/robust (super) shark much like Cardabiodontidae but far bigger and more evolved in comparison. Otodus obliquus - starting point of the lineage which eventually culminated in Megalodon - give the impression of being similar to Cardabiodon in many respects; an offshoot of Cardabiondontidae? Most interesting observation is the Carcharocles chubutensis - Megalodon transition. Fossil records seem to give the impression of co-existence of these two gigantic forms throughout Miocene. Although Carcharocles chubutensis is believed to have transformed into Megalodon over time (loss of lateral cusplets in dentition over time) but it also co-existed as a morphospecies for millions of years? Excellent read: www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/megalodons-teeth-evolved-into-the-ultimate-cutting-tools/The Carcharocles chubutensis - Megalodon transition have significant implications for not only estimating the true size of the Megalodon form (versus Carcharocles chubutensis) but how to distinguish these two in terms of appearance and otherwise. The Megalodon form was relatively larger and more refined in comparison. Although Carcharocles chubutensis is noted for its excellent versatility. |
|
|
|
Post by sam1 on Oct 26, 2019 0:29:33 GMT 5
So in the end, both animals are absurdly, stupidly oversized for no good reason.
If anything, going out of proportion so far makes for a diminishing horror factor to me.
It is much scarier to imagine being targeted by a Jaws sized shark, or an actual mosasaur, than by monsters that would barely even felt a human.
The meg and mosasaur from those captions wouldn't even touched a human with their teeth, they would just gulped it down.
So much for blood and gore.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 26, 2019 2:30:32 GMT 5
I did not dislike the purely visual aspects of the model shown in "the meg", what I had an issue with was how little it had to do with realistic shark morphology. Leaving aside the gills (yes, I remember some people liked them from a respiratory viewpoint, although I maintain that they are not very plausible from an evolutionary or developmental one), the whole proportions are what’s the problem, accuracy-wise. compare:   Looks a bit like a baloon when seen in dorsal or ventral view. It’s important to note the biological implications such proportions would have in a real animal at some point, since at least aspects of this rendition are being discussed as if it had some measure of accuracy. The front half (everything in front of the pectoral fins) simply looks like it belongs to a way larger shark that was frankensteined onto the posterior half of a much smaller one. Firstly, having such a puny tail and ridiculously thick mid-section, it seems unlikely such a shark would be able to move with even moderate levels of speed or agility, certainly not jump out of the water like shown in that picture. Fitting the head region of the second picture grey posted over the ventral view to measure the jaw perimeter, it also looks like if that had a 370 cm jaw perimeter, it would be just 12 m (~29 t), which would imply the very largest known teeth would correspond to a 15 m 56 t shark. That means if the meg in the movie is really 90 ft long, it is about 80 % larger in linear terms, would have a jaw perimeter of over 8 m, and probably be 6 times more massive (indeed well over 300 t according to this built). So yes, way more oversized than I thought it was. And lol that movie poster is among the most ludicrous things I’ve ever seen. I mean, nice to have a kaiju-sized shark as well, if we already need to have a kaiju-sized mosasaur. But really, it’s mind-boggling to imagine the scales we are talking about here. The smaller shark that’s chasing the diver (I presume supposed to be a white shark?) is already almost the size of an adult megalodon. I can’t even properly imagine how large the owner of those jaws would be. Does that reflect sizes shown in the film at some point? What is it with the makers of those films that they promote something as basing on real animals, and then feel the need to blow up those "real" animals to Godzilla-size? The original Jurassic Park series never did something like that, by comparison with these monster movies, it downright looks like a documentary. Anyway, shark wins in most scenarios, these things considered, as long as it is not subject to any real world physics. |
|
|
|
Post by prehistorican on Oct 26, 2019 10:09:02 GMT 5
The Meg (relatively) isn’t too far off from the real thing (20m? 90t vs 23m ?t) whereas the Mosasaurus from JW is insanely oversized (13 or 18m vs 30-40m). I doubt the Meg weighs 300t, maybe 150t tops. Kaiju wins. Also movie posters exaggerate a lot of things, the shark was never nearly as big Godzilla posters do similar things.
|
|
|
|
Post by Verdugo on Oct 26, 2019 15:30:08 GMT 5
Since when did we start using promotional materials and treat it as canon? Promotional materials always grossly over-exaggerate the dimensions of the creatures in the movie. 'Jaws' was over-exaggerated in its promotional poster as well. The Jaws in the movie is nowhere near that big. Heck, even Godzilla was oversized as hell in the poster. I suppose i'm guilty of that too because i also used the concept materials (whale chomping Mosasaur is a concept material, it does not happen in the movies, yet) and not those from the actual movie. Anyway, when compare the stats and feats of movie characters, the most canon way to compare them is by looking at how they are in the Movies and we should only look for other materials when it's too vague. These are screenshots of both Meg and Mosasaur in the movies:   If anyone can make a comparison, it would be good. I must admit, the Meg is much more oversized then i remember. To be fair, the Meg size changes frequently throughout the movie. Sometimes, it's about the size of a real animal, sometimes it's Kaju size (like this time). Also, there is no evidence at all to suggest the Meg would be more formidable at size parity or even if it's bigger. Morphology based argument is irrelevant when discussing fictional creatures. If the creator wants to make a creature with conical teeth like Crocodiles but make it bite chunks out of other animals like Sharks, then it can bite like Sharks do. There are no evidence to suggest that the Mosasaur would be less durable or have less damaging bite then the Meg. This is simply due to the fact that the Mosasaur does not have many feats. I mean it has like 10 mins of screen times over 2 movies. I suppose we will see a lot more about its capabilities in the third movies. Regarding who has more formidable bite though, this comparison may be relevant: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYIhxXt58uE&t=73s^At 1:04, Meg has difficulty chomping through the mini sub. www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAf3IBKWubo^ At 2:20, Mosasaur destroyed the mini sub in an instant. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Oct 26, 2019 15:57:35 GMT 5
It really depends on whether we use the Jurassic World or Jurassic World 2 version of the mosasaur, the one in the first movie isn’t quite that Kaiju-sized (and might be smaller than "the meg", at the size it’s shown at in the movie, if the latter is really 27 m long).
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Oct 26, 2019 16:38:39 GMT 5
The female in the movie is 75 ft so around 195 tons according to the volumetric model by theropod.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 26, 2019 17:26:00 GMT 5
Since when did we start using promotional materials and treat it as canon? Promotional materials always grossly over-exaggerate the dimensions of the creatures in the movie. 'Jaws' was over-exaggerated in its promotional poster as well. The Jaws in the movie is nowhere near that big. Heck, even Godzilla was oversized as hell in the poster. I suppose i'm guilty of that too because i also used the concept materials (whale chomping Mosasaur is a concept material, it does not happen in the movies, yet) and not those from the actual movie. Anyway, when compare the stats and feats of movie characters, the most canon way to compare them is by looking at how they are in the Movies and we should only look for other materials when it's too vague. These are screenshots of both Meg and Mosasaur in the movies: See my post for correct comparison: theworldofanimals.proboards.com/post/48549The Megalodon in your photo is far smaller than the one which consumes it after the former is killed and suspended on the research vessel by protagonists.    - destroying the research vessel in the process. If anyone can make a comparison, it would be good. I must admit, the Meg is much more oversized then i remember. To be fair, the Meg size changes frequently throughout the movie. Sometimes, it's about the size of a real animal, sometimes it's Kaju size (like this time). Also, there is no evidence at all to suggest the Meg would be more formidable at size parity or even if it's bigger. Morphology based argument is irrelevant when discussing fictional creatures. If the creator wants to make a creature with conical teeth like Crocodiles but make it bite chunks out of other animals like Sharks, then it can bite like Sharks do. There are no evidence to suggest that the Mosasaur would be less durable or have less damaging bite then the Meg. This is simply due to the fact that the Mosasaur does not have many feats. I mean it has like 10 mins of screen times over 2 movies. I suppose we will see a lot more about its capabilities in the third movies. Regarding who has more formidable bite though, this comparison may be relevant: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYIhxXt58uE&t=73s^At 1:04, Meg has difficulty chomping through the mini sub. www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAf3IBKWubo^ At 2:20, Mosasaur destroyed the mini sub in an instant. You are mistakenly assuming that all mini-subs are created equal. The mini-subs used by protagonists in THE MEG 2018 film are military-grade armed with missiles. The monstrous Megalodon in THE MEG 2018 not only capsized that large research vessel but also tolerated a MISSILE attack later on. In fact, one of these monstrous Megalodon destroyed a nuclear submarine early on in the film. Destroying a nuclear submarine is bordering Kaiju territory... The monstrous Megalodon is most likely bigger than the Mosasaur shown in Jurassic World II (Less in TL; more in terms of muscle mass) and would rather eat it. |
|
|
|
Post by Life on Oct 26, 2019 18:42:28 GMT 5
I did not dislike the purely visual aspects of the model shown in "the meg", what I had an issue with was how little it had to do with realistic shark morphology. Leaving aside the gills (yes, I remember some people liked them from a respiratory viewpoint, although I maintain that they are not very plausible from an evolutionary or developmental one), the whole proportions are what’s the problem, accuracy-wise. compare: Looks a bit like a baloon when seen in dorsal or ventral view. It’s important to note the biological implications such proportions would have in a real animal at some point, since at least aspects of this rendition are being discussed as if it had some measure of accuracy. The front half (everything in front of the pectoral fins) simply looks like it belongs to a way larger shark that was frankensteined onto the posterior half of a much smaller one. Firstly, having such a puny tail and ridiculously thick mid-section, it seems unlikely such a shark would be able to move with even moderate levels of speed or agility, certainly not jump out of the water like shown in that picture. Fitting the head region of the second picture grey posted over the ventral view to measure the jaw perimeter, it also looks like if that had a 370 cm jaw perimeter, it would be just 12 m (~29 t), which would imply the very largest known teeth would correspond to a 15 m 56 t shark. That means if the meg in the movie is really 90 ft long, it is about 80 % larger in linear terms, would have a jaw perimeter of over 8 m, and probably be 6 times more massive (indeed well over 300 t according to this built). So yes, way more oversized than I thought it was. And lol that movie poster is among the most ludicrous things I’ve ever seen. I mean, nice to have a kaiju-sized shark as well, if we already need to have a kaiju-sized mosasaur. But really, it’s mind-boggling to imagine the scales we are talking about here. The smaller shark that’s chasing the diver (I presume supposed to be a white shark?) is already almost the size of an adult megalodon. I can’t even properly imagine how large the owner of those jaws would be. Does that reflect sizes shown in the film at some point? What is it with the makers of those films that they promote something as basing on real animals, and then feel the need to blow up those "real" animals to Godzilla-size? The original Jurassic Park series never did something like that, by comparison with these monster movies, it downright looks like a documentary. Anyway, shark wins in most scenarios, these things considered, as long as it is not subject to any real world physics. Yes, that looks odd. I agree with your views here. Following portrayals are really good.   |
|
