|
Post by theropod on May 29, 2013 15:55:01 GMT 5
Found another inaccuracy, in the allosaurus profile they claim Allosaurus would have killed using bacteria, "like komodo dragons". In fact there are no animals that utilise bacteria, and monitor lizards augment their bite with venom, for which there is no evidence in Allosaurus and no need either. reminds me of the T. rex fanboys: "but rex had those veeery special serrations of its teeth and scientists have PROVEN they held pieces of rotting meat and every animal bitten by a T-rex would have died from infection!!!!!!!!!"
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 29, 2013 15:58:35 GMT 5
Their size figures are flawed too. There is no theropod that was 5m tall, that must have come straight from Madsen's 1976 osteology basing on a 13m Epanterias in kangoroo stance. They state Allosaurus to be 12m long (which holds true when including Epanterias), but only 1,4t in weight, while that is in fact the weight for 7-8m Big Al (making a 12m Epanterias rather 5,5t or so).
Further down the page they also state Allosaurus to have had forward facing eyes. They make a definitive statement about skin structure, which is most likely wrong (smooth and leathery), and take its arms as an example for short forelimbs, while in fact they were among the longest in theropods, except for Neovenatorids and Spinosaurs.
I really hope they will correct their info before they produce the show, otherwise WWD and PD will be much more accurate.
EDIT: OMG, they give a bite force lower than that of a leopard. The absolute lowest figure for one of the smallest adult Allosauruses given in Rayfield, 2001 was 80kg, and the much more likely upper figure was 200kg. For a similar sized specimen Bates & Falkingham, 2012, calculated 800kg. Scaling those up to the maximum confirmed size of A. fragilis yields about 360kg-1,4t, scaling to "Epanterias-size" yields 500kg-2t. They pretty much ignored the scaling and most of the estimates for their conclusions...
If they don't fix that stuff I'll have to contact the BBC...
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on May 29, 2013 18:03:34 GMT 5
PD was so much more accurate than that stuffÂ… Their accuracy level rapidly fell.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on May 29, 2013 18:29:24 GMT 5
You can contact directly a paleontologist on the site.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 31, 2013 22:30:00 GMT 5
I've asked Brusatte through the form, however I didn't get a response.
However I doubt he is the one making the profiles, or direct consultant for them. The depictions of the animals aren't jsut generally inaccurate, but also in disagreement with some of his responses (none of the large theropods are feathered while he clearly demonstrates all dinosaur should be)
|
|
|
Post by theropod on May 31, 2013 22:51:28 GMT 5
I think we should collect the inaccuracies in their profiles;
Allosaurus (12m long=Epanterias): 5m tall (rather 3m in fact) bite force of only 350kg/<that of a leopard (based on Rayfield et al., 2001 it should be at least 500kg. Based on Hutchinson et al., 2012, it should be 2t) Infectious saliva "like a komodo dragon" (monitors or any other animal for that matter does not have infectious saliva but venom) 1,4t in weight (should be 5t or so) slower than T. rex (at least at that size there's a good chance it wouldn't) no filaments (should be assumed since plesiomorphic to ornithodira, dinosauria, theropoda, avetheropoda etc.) Not sure, have there really been studies on the hearing of Allosaurus? They state it to have been bad. I am asking myself what all the brain could be for then, since it is actually fairly large comapred to body size and the cerebrum is not that huge. It is impossible that T. rex was far better at everything...
T. rex: 4m tall, 13m long (should be 12,3m and ~3,5m) Bite force of only 3t and "strongest bite of any terrestrial animal ever" (should be 5,7t, maybe higher, and not even clsoe to being the strongest of any terrestrial animal ever) Infectious saliva "like a komodo dragon" (same as above) some others are very debateable and stated like facts
These two seem particularly flawed. I'll continue this list later.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 2, 2013 3:32:53 GMT 5
Fully agreed with all but the Tyrannosaurus bite force part.
If you take into account the giants crocodilians, which is debattable, I agree but "not even close" ?, what does that mean ? Perhaps you would have prefered the status of "most powerful bite known among dinosaurs" ?
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 2, 2013 4:27:30 GMT 5
Fully agreed with all but the Tyrannosaurus bite force part. If you take into account the giants crocodilians, which is debattable, I agree but "not even close" ?, what does that mean ? Perhaps you would have prefered the status of "most powerful bite known among dinosaurs" ? Yes, that would be better. I may have exagerated that. Based on the most recent published figures Deinosuchus would have bit nearly twice as powerful, but the bite force in Bates & Falkingham might have been underestimated according to coheresheaf. I agree apart from these crocodilians there probably is no known terrestrial animal wih a comparable crushing bite. However the media are still too sensationalistic about it.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 2, 2013 5:05:49 GMT 5
Agreed, I've read coherentsheaf. The bite force field is a very complex subject.
I await the rest of your list.
Also, some shapes in the scales do not represent the actual measurements of the animals.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 2, 2013 15:16:04 GMT 5
No, the scales are wrong alltogether it appears. I remember their Argentinosaurus wasn't much larger than the elephant. They just scaled them incorrectly.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 3, 2013 1:05:58 GMT 5
Damn, I had collected all the inaccuracies and then my browser crashed! I'll repost them tomorrow.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Jun 3, 2013 7:42:27 GMT 5
The single greatest inaccuracy, and complete BS is the statement that a Diplodocus fart would fill an entire hot air balloon, and that it's feces were 2 tons in weight and 10 meters across! Not to mention the most idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Dec 21, 2013 7:24:46 GMT 5
Just watched this movie today, and forgive my crude way of phrasing things, but I think the best comparsion I think I can make for this movie is to that of a porno, amazing visuals but terrible stubstance XD.
But seriously the script(yes the dinosaurs talk)was horrendous, and so were the voice actors, to the point where I had to listen to music throughout the movie to prevent myself for gouging out my own ear drums, and even then I was pratically gritting my teeth throughout the whole movie. The artists evidently worked extremely hard as the texture on the dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and birds was astoudingly detailed. You could see each and every indivdual scale and feather on their bodies, but those effects are ruined by the dinosaurs EXTREMELY forced dialog, with the main characters mentioning ninjas and human currency. WTF, honestly the writers of Dora the explorer could have done better. I woudn't be the slightest bit suprsied if the creators of the movie orignally intented for this movie to be voiceless only to chicken out at the last second and slap it on at a month or two before release. I felt incredibly dispointed throughout the entirety of the film.
On the plus side this movie doesn;t shy away from violence. Sure there isn't any blood but there is a pretty hardcore scene where a gorgosaurus has its arm broken and visibly limp at its side in the climax of the film.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 21, 2013 14:22:21 GMT 5
Your description reminds me of the DR critique (I know, you can't compare a documentary with a movie), where they said it was a waste of good dinosaur graphics.
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 21, 2013 17:02:49 GMT 5
This definitely isn't a remake of the original walking with dinosaurs...
|
|