|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 28, 2014 11:10:01 GMT 5
Just answer me this, but are you going to go into the theater and analyze every aspect of the film, or are you going in with an open mind and just accept what you see whether or not it is scientifically-accurate and remember that it is just a fictional movie intended for entertainment? It just seems to me like many of you guys will not enjoy it unless it is scientifically-accurate; just judging from what you guys are saying about its TRAILER. I'm of course going to analyse the movie, it's not as if I difn't think about the movies I watch, you know. I don't know why you're treating that as if it wss the opposite of keeping an open mind… |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 28, 2014 12:10:28 GMT 5
I've already said as well that the shark is likely very small and that the mosasaur apoears to be not far away from the shore with nearest people.
It is possible the model is a bit too large but the perspective plays a lot. There were shots in the previous films where the rex and Spiny appeared larger than their official size listing.
I think it's an educated guess by Horner. Note that the 14 tons figure could have been arranged at a less precise 15 or 20 tons.
The size listing of the other animals on tje website are precise and accurate too. The T. rex is listed at 12 m and 8 000 kg. In the previous movies size listing this was figure about 13-14 m that were given for the T. rex. This suggests a more serious reseach at least for the size figures on this movie.
Whatever the feeling these few shots give, the official weight of the JW mosasaur is 14 tonnes. I'm not surprised of this.
Reading through the website, it seems like the T. rex in the movie will be the individual of the original JP (she wears the scars on its back and flanks of the raptor attack in the climax). I find this excellent !
|
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Nov 28, 2014 13:07:20 GMT 5
I know, it is supposed to be a possibility. Yet, you can't expect them to get every size with dead-on accuracy in Jurassic World There's a big difference between "not dead on" and 75% too large in linear terms. Grey: somehow I doubt that was derived by an accurate scientific method, it's probably a guess. Anx even if not, they may have scaled the model too big later, during compositing. I've already said that perspective isn't the problem when you are dealing with two things that are aligned in the same plane. 14 tonnes is in the upper range for a very large Mosasaur that can be considered to be remotely plausible. The very large italian specimen was said to approach 10^4 kg (though checking te plausible road to this estimate it the approach is from bellow not from above.) |
|
|
|
Post by coherentsheaf on Nov 28, 2014 13:08:13 GMT 5
Te linear dimensons though suggest an animal substantially in excess of 14 tonnes.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 28, 2014 14:54:31 GMT 5
coherentsheaf: That was my point, 14t may be plausible, but that doesn't meaan the model isn't too large. Also it should be the size of the animal as shown in the film that we should consider relevant, not information in online wikis or supporting information. The size shown in the movie simply doesn't have to be consistent with information released along with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Life on Nov 28, 2014 18:16:16 GMT 5
Film directors rarely focus on historical and scientific accuracy of events and stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 28, 2014 19:46:10 GMT 5
Well, that it is often done doesn't mean that it is good. For example many people criticize Hollywood movies for including propaganda (to reply to your history example).
But personally, I am none of these. While I watch movies with distance, I don't let such errors influence how I rate movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 28, 2014 20:06:41 GMT 5
Just answer me this, but are you going to go into the theater and analyze every aspect of the film, or are you going in with an open mind and just accept what you see whether or not it is scientifically-accurate and remember that it is just a fictional movie intended for entertainment? It just seems to me like many of you guys will not enjoy it unless it is scientifically-accurate; just judging from what you guys are saying about its TRAILER. I'm of course going to analyse the movie, it's not as if I difn't think about the movies I watch, you know. I don't know why you're treating that as if it wss the opposite of keeping an open mind… That is not what I meant. You can definitely ANALYZE it to an EXTENT but not to the point where it takes over your mind and prevents you from enjoying the movie (or just sours your experience completely due to the lack of accuracy) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 20:36:15 GMT 5
Why does scientific accuracy really matter for a movie's quality? As far as I know, this is far from a documentary. Legendary's Godzilla, for example, is an inaccuracy fest. Yet it is widely accepted as an excellent movie.
Concerning the shark, it is very likely small (regardless of its build), if you actually compare it to the people watching the scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 28, 2014 21:01:19 GMT 5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 21:12:00 GMT 5
Looks a bit different from the trailer, but that might be just me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2014 5:32:30 GMT 5
And it has science in it’s name. I already explained the fiction part I think. Of course that fiction part can be more or less developed (in some it’s objectively closer to fantasy), and not everything has to be scientifically credible, but there’s still science in it. It has science along with fiction. If it was just science, then yes, it should be accurate, but "science fiction" is basically fiction concerning scientific contexts. |
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Nov 29, 2014 7:45:22 GMT 5
90% fiction 10% science.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 29, 2014 17:00:46 GMT 5
Godzillasaurus: How else am I supposed to decide whether I enjoy a movie? In the end, following your logic I shouldn”t pay attention to it at all, because it coudl influence me as to not like it. @hatzegopteryx: As Grey already pointed out, the perspective makes it impossible to use the people for scale. So I don’t see how you could conclude about the shark’s size based on the people, but not the mosasaur. As I already wrote, it being a tiny shark seems unlikely not just based on its built, but also following the rules of dramatic presentation. If you make a monster movie, you don’t want to make your monsters look comical by only including tiny animals for scale–rather you make your monsters large, and I suppose that’s what they did here. Besides, the shark looks huge compared to the humans, much larger than my minimum guess. I wasn’t talking about science fiction being accurate (how can something that’S clearly impossible be accurate?). But the point about science fiction (and that’s why it’s called science fiction and not fantasy) is that it has to be realistic within the assumptions taken, no matter how ridiculous those might be. Jurrassic park for example presupposes that it is possible to clone mesozoic dinosaurs with the help of parasitic insects preserved in amber, and that it is possible to "patch" their DNA with that of amphibians. But that’s where the problems start: Why does amphibian DNA cause the animals to have SCALY skin and pronated arms but be otherwise anatomically normal (and why did the genes responsible for the dermal anatomy happen to be the only ones that didn’t get preserved)? Why even use amphibian DNA, and not bird or crocodile DNA? And how did the mosquitoes happen to suck blood from a mosasaur? Why are there no cenozoic animals in JP even though Amber is most common in cenozoic deposits? Perhaps we’ll get some answers to some of those questions in this movie, I’m not saying they are all unanswerable, but imo the best science fiction films are those that are conceived well enough to make sense by themselves.
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226 
|
Post by gigadino96 on Nov 29, 2014 18:18:48 GMT 5
|
|
