Jurassic Park 2015

[theropod]

Somehow its hands look strange, as if it was tetradactyl and the third digit was much longer than the others.

Maybe it is supposed to be (or include) some type of basal abelisauroid/ceratosaur?

[creature386]

The guys in the comments suggested a Velociraptor/Tyrannosaurus hybrid. We all know that Velociraptor is soo tetradactyl.

My own guess:
Is a Dilophosaurus/Tyrannosaurus hybrid possible? Dilophosaurus is the most famous tetradactyl theropod that has a name starting with D I can think of.

[Deleted]

Nov 29, 2014 17:00:46 GMT 5 theropod said:

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.

The thing is - we do know for sure the size of those humans, they don't vary by much. However, the mosasaur's size is what we are trying to deduce (I presume). So how much sense does it make to try deducing something's size by using its own size as a reference? Correct me if I presumed wrongly, but that makes no sense at all in my opinion. I am certain some calculations could yield a number for the shark's size based on the people around there, and even then, I doubt the shark is too large.

Nov 29, 2014 17:00:46 GMT 5 theropod said:

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.

The build is entirely irrelevant. It is somewhat ironic how the movie's accuracy is being criticized, yet you are relying on the shark's build. I have never seen any movie accurately depicting an analogue for this situation. I am fairly certain they wouldn't make its build compatible with its size. Concerning the other point why it could be a large shark, I think all the people in the scene also serve as a way to give an idea of the mosasaur's size. After all, it is extremely more likely that your audience will be more aware of the possible size for the humans, rather than for the shark. And moreover, they possess the technology to create a quadrihybrid designed to be massive, so why can't they also make a large mosasaur?

Nov 29, 2014 17:00:46 GMT 5 theropod said:

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.

Though the movie is realistic to an extent within its own assumptions, why don't we look at realistic parts of the movie instead? The mere fact the assumptions taken by the movie have their own realistic parts shows how it can easily be labelled as your description of science fiction. Plus, about the genre's name, it also means, as I already explained, something fictional in a scientific context - in which case, Jurassic Park certainly classifies as a science fiction movie. 

And seeing as they had the technology to create Diabolus rex, I am not very surprised by the fact they're anatomically normal in many aspects, but do not possess feathers, and have pronated arms.

[Deleted]

Here's a supposed concept art of D. rex by Crash McCreery, the concept artist for the original trilogy. It looks a lot like his style.

[theropod]

…or a coelophysoid! I think I agree with Creature, Dilophosaurus would make sense. It’s tetradactyl (albeit not functionally so) and it was actually in a previous JP movie.

The picture posted earlier looks less tyrannosaur-like in the head-region than that sketch. But then again, that sketch also has terribly drawn limbs and very odd proportions.

[creature386]

The D. stays for diablus, then half of my argumentation for Dilophosaurus is gone.

[Grey]

Nov 29, 2014 19:31:33 GMT 5 @felidae said:

Here's a supposed concept art of D. rex by Crash McCreery, the concept artist for the original trilogy. It looks a lot like his style.

The source of it is not certain, anyway the final hybrid does not look like that. It seems to me it looks like a modified, large armed, albinos carcharodontosaurid. Horner said the creature is truly frightening.

[theropod]

The thing is - we do know for sure the size of those humans, they don't vary by much.

Sure, it’s just that due to the aforementioned problem the humans are still useless. That is, unless you have got a scene were the humans and either the shark or the mosasaur are in the same plane and distance from the viewer. That’s just impossible to judge with the given material.
But the shark is definitely in the same plane as the mosasaur, it looks like a Great white, and it probably also is supposed to be. I highly doubt that’s a 1.2m shark.

So how much sense does it make to try deducing something's size by using its own size as a reference?

I wasn’t using its own size as a reference for deducing its size. I was using the shark, of which one can reasonably say it must be somewhere between 2 and 6m long. I’m going with the lower bound to cut the movie some slack.

Correct me if I presumed wrongly, but that makes no sense at all in my
opinion. I am certain some calculations could yield a number for the
shark's size based on the people around there, and even then, I doubt
the shark is too large.

I’d be happy to see those calculations. But by any means, if you can calculate the sharks size you can also just calculate the mosasaur’s size. I was already assuming that shark wasn’t too large (or do you call a 2m white shark large?), but I’d find it both inconsistent and comical if it was smaller than that.

The build is entirely irrelevant. It is somewhat ironic how the movie's
accuracy is being criticized, yet you are relying on the shark's build.

It is? Well if you think so, then what do you think, would they rather undersize their sharks, or oversize their mosasaurs? And what motivation could they possibly have for using something that is proportioned like an adult great white but scaling it to the lenght of a spiny dogfish (I personally don’t think any film in the genre would ever use a shark the size of a spiny dogfish for anything except comic relief)?

 I have never seen any movie accurately depicting an analogue for this situation.

That’s my point, this situation is inaccurate one way or another, but most likely on account of the mosasaur’s size, not the shark’s, because the makers have a reason to oversize the mosasaur, but no reason to undersize the shark it’s being fed with.

Concerning the other point why it could be a large shark, I think all
the people in the scene also serve as a way to give an idea of the
mosasaur's size. After all, it is extremely more likely that your
audience will be more aware of the possible size for the humans, rather
than for the shark.

But it’s actually completely impossible to accurately judge the sizes based on the humans. Based on the mere look, that shark looks like an adult great white of 3-4m or more (compare it to the human standing on the platform), but that holds no value since the actual distance is obscured.

And moreover, they possess the technology to create a quadrihybrid
designed to be massive, so why can't they also make a large mosasaur?

Of course they could. Assuming they did tough, in which case this isn’t a normal mosasaur any more, it can hardly be considered a real animal.

Though the movie is realistic to an extent within its own assumptions,
why don't we look at realistic parts of the movie instead?

Because there aren’t too many. Assuming someone were to clone Velociraptors, they’d come out feathered, about 2m in lenght and certainly not primate-like in terms of intelligence or as fast as cheetahs. Assuming someone were to clone T. rex, it wouldn’t be able to outrun a car.
It was, originally, a very good attempt, that’s true (and that’S why in 1993 Jurassic Park must have been a truly amazing movie). The sequels just haven’t kept up with the scientific findings tough.

 The mere fact the assumptions taken by the movie have their own
realistic parts shows how it can easily be labelled as your description
of science fiction.

Of course it can be labeled as science fiction. The question is to what point it meets the criteria to be truly great science fiction, as great as the fans expect it to be.

Plus, about the genre's name, it also means, as I already explained, something fictional in a scientific context

That’s what I meant too. Actually I think can also be something scientific in a fictional context, that’s not the important thing. It’s that the fictional and realistic parts should be distinguished, hence why the realistic parts should also really be realistic (like, for example, using a realistic Velociraptor if they claim they cloned it). That’s also why I’ve got no problem with the sex-changing dinosaurs explained by their frog DNA, because it was explained in the context of the fictional parts.

And seeing as they had the technology to create Diabolus rex, I
am not very surprised by the fact they're anatomically normal in many
aspects, but do not possess feathers, and have pronated arms.

I think they could. In that case however, I think the movie should explain that they genetically manipulated the animals to be lacking feathers and have deformed limbs, maybe to meet the expectations of the uneducated spectators. That would probably make for a more interesting approach to the dangers of genetics than creating yet another genetic manipulation.

[theropod]

Nov 29, 2014 20:29:16 GMT 5 Grey said:

Nov 29, 2014 19:31:33 GMT 5 @felidae said:

Here's a supposed concept art of D. rex by Crash McCreery, the concept artist for the original trilogy. It looks a lot like his style.

The source of it is not certain, anyway the final hybrid does not look like that. It seems to me it looks like a modified, large armed, albinos carcharodontosaurid. Horner said the creature is truly frightening.

If they just wanted an albino carcharodontosaur, no doubt they could have used an existing taxon for it and played around with one of the relevant genes. I think there’s more to it than that, some features of coelophysoid or ceratosaurian theropods (something from Carnotaurus, perhaps?), and the rest isn’t necessarily a carcharodontosaur either. The reports I’ve read and the "rex" in its name suggest there’s something from a T. rex in it too, and if I’d take any T. rex part for such a creature, it’d be the more striking ones, most likely the head, or perhaps the hindlimbs.

But why an albino? The picture doesn’t look like that at all.

[Grey]

For now the so-called "D. rex" designation is only rumored. I don't say it's a carcharodontosaurid but overall it is not reminescent of a T. rex in its skull shape.

It looks like whitish on the image and a guy who saw another trailer (not yet released) said that at one moment we see the raptors attacking a large animal with a skin somewhat translucent an whitish.

This may be related to the chameleon-like ability of the Carnotaurus in the novel.

[theropod]

Either way, if I’m not mistaken it can’t be an albino but at the same time have the ability to change its skin colour.

[Deleted]

Sure, it’s just that due to the aforementioned problem the humans are still useless. That is, unless you have got a scene were the humans and either the shark or the mosasaur are in the same plane and distance from the viewer. That’s just impossible to judge with the given material.
But the shark is definitely in the same plane as the mosasaur, it looks like a Great white, and it probably also is supposed to be. I highly doubt that’s a 1.2m shark.

Doubting it doesn't make anything a fact. The chances of it being a large shark do more than obviously exist, but ruling out the likely possibility of it being at least under average just doesn't seem right to me.

I wasn’t using its own size as a reference for deducing its size. I was using the shark, of which one can reasonably say it must be somewhere between 2 and 6m long. I’m going with the lower bound to cut the movie some slack.

If the shark is 2 metres, doesn't that make the mosasaur more or less the proper size? I saw something on this thread about the creatures being larger than usual, considering the higher possibility of the known specimens not being the largest possible.I’d be happy to see those calculations. But by any means, if you can calculate the sharks size you can also just calculate the mosasaur’s size. I was already assuming that shark wasn’t too large (or do you call a 2m white shark large?), but I’d find it both inconsistent and comical if it was smaller than that.So would I, I think Vodmeister has once used some kind of similar calculation before, though I did never get an approach to that area of maths. I hadn't seen it where you believed it was 2 metres until the other part of your post I'm quoting, though 2 metres is, in terms of length, half the size of an average great white, so definitely not a large specimen.

It is? Well if you think so, then what do you think, would they rather undersize their sharks, or oversize their mosasaurs? And what motivation could they possibly have for using something that is proportioned like an adult great white but scaling it to the lenght of a spiny dogfish (I personally don’t think any film in the genre would ever use a shark the size of a spiny dogfish for anything except comic relief)?

Although I would not give a small animal in a movie the proportions of a large one, it's unlikely that they will follow this rule, seeing as they haven't followed more obvious rules in the trilogy. And what do you think they'd prefer - having a 100 metre mosasaur, or a 20 metre-ish one? Surely 100 metres is a lot more than they need, and 20 metres is a colossal, yet more realistic size to go with.

That’s my point, this situation is inaccurate one way or another, but most likely on account of the mosasaur’s size, not the shark’s, because the makers have a reason to oversize the mosasaur, but no reason to undersize the shark it’s being fed with.

I don't think they'd really care much about the shark's size. I myself didn't expect people to care this much about it (and even then, I haven't seen people outside this thread even mentioning the shark).

But it’s actually completely impossible to accurately judge the sizes based on the humans. Based on the mere look, that shark looks like an adult great white of 3-4m or more (compare it to the human standing on the platform), but that holds no value since the actual distance is obscured.

Then this means, based on what you agree with from what I've seen so far, that there is absolutely no way to tell how big the shark is, and therefore the same goes for the mosasaur. All we can do is throw the possibilities out there. Doesn't that quite make our situation here obsolete?

Of course they could. Assuming they did tough, in which case this isn’t a normal mosasaur any more, it can hardly be considered a real animal.

Yes, though at least it does its job as a part of the movie nonetheless.

Because there aren’t too many. Assuming someone were to clone Velociraptors, they’d come out feathered, about 2m in lenght and certainly not primate-like in terms of intelligence or as fast as cheetahs. Assuming someone were to clone T. rex, it wouldn’t be able to outrun a car.
It was, originally, a very good attempt, that’s true (and that’S why in 1993 Jurassic Park must have been a truly amazing movie). The sequels just haven’t kept up with the scientific findings tough.

Nonetheless, they do exist, and thus can be used. But that's for sure, and I think this contributes a bit to the original movie's higher rating in comparison to the other two.

Of course it can be labeled as science fiction. The question is to what point it meets the criteria to be truly great science fiction, as great as the fans expect it to be.

I think they care more about the entertainment it can provide.

That’s what I meant too. Actually I think can also be something scientific in a fictional context, that’s not the important thing. It’s that the fictional and realistic parts should be distinguished, hence why the realistic parts should also really be realistic (like, for example, using a realistic Velociraptor if they claim they cloned it). That’s also why I’ve got no problem with the sex-changing dinosaurs explained by their frog DNA, because it was explained in the context of the fictional parts.

I think good part of this is also owed to the fact of what many of their fans want to see. After all, a movie that does not provide what its fans want is utterly pointless (and a waste of time and money).

I think they could. In that case however, I think the movie should explain that they genetically manipulated the animals to be lacking feathers and have deformed limbs, maybe to meet the expectations of the uneducated spectators. That would probably make for a more interesting approach to the dangers of genetics than creating yet another genetic manipulation.

I agree with this. After all, we'd get an entertaining movie, and the impact the trilogy has had on the debating areas is incredibly clear, so we would probably get a rise of less misinformed people on communities concerning debating on those animals.

[Grey]

Nov 29, 2014 22:05:15 GMT 5 theropod said:

Either way, if I’m not mistaken it can’t be an albino but at the same time have the ability to change its skin colour.

That's a fictional hybrid... And we have few details about it yet.

[theropod]

Doubting it doesn't make anything a fact.

Indeed. But did I get that right, you doubt that shark is more than 1.2m long?

 The
chances of it being a large shark do more than obviously exist, but
ruling out the likely possibility of it being at least under average
just doesn't seem right to me.

If that shark is under average, that mosasaur head is still oversized. I don’t find it likely they’d take something so tiny that it isn’t, no. I already said why.

If the shark is 2 metres, doesn't that make the mosasaur more or less the proper size?

Nowhere near it. If that shark is 2m long, the mosasaur’s skull lenght is 3.4m and its mandible lenght 3.6m. Not even pliosaur skulls that big have been recovered, the only marine animals currently known from skulls that big are cetaceans (although there’s the possibility of some giant ichthyosaurs reaching these skull lenght, depending on their built). By comparison, the largest mosasaur in several exceptionally large specimens that we surveyed in the largest mosasaur-thread has a mandible slightly over 2m long (and that’s exceptional, the majority of mosasaur specimens commonly listed as the "largest" have skulls quite a bit smallar, 1.4-1.6m).

I saw something on this thread about the creatures being larger than usual, considering the higher possibility of the known specimens not being the largest possible.

Well, that’s an argument you can always use, but whenever you use it it gets criticised by someone. it’s just as likely that the individual is smaller than the ones we found as that it’s larger. Snd the bigger the range of sizes that’s already known, the less likely it gets that something was significantly larger or smaller. And being 75% larger in linear terms (or 5.4 times the mass) than what is by far the largest known mosasaur isn’t exactly a minor thing (considering record-sized specimens in extant animals are usually ~2-3 times the mass of the AVERAGE specimen), too improbable to be plausible (that’s were the science fiction thing starts again).
You are right, they could plausibly genetically engineer it to be abnormally huge. Leaving aside that I think it gets a lame excuse if you say so for everything that’s inaccurate, that doesn’t count as portraying a mosasaur, ’cause it’d be a genetically altered mosasaur. For all we know that thing was intended to be a normal mosasaur, but probably got a bit too big somewhere during animation or compositing.

So would I, I think Vodmeister has once used some kind of similar calculation before, though I did never get an approach to that area of maths. I hadn't seen it where you believed it was 2 metres until the other part of your post I'm quoting, though 2 metres is, in terms of length, half the size of an average great white, so definitely not a large specimen.

That was my point. If I assume that’s a small shark, the mosasaur is still oversized significantly. in order to make its size consistent with the current real record holder, the shark would have to be comically tiny. That shark didn’t look like it was intended to be a neonate, but feel free to disagree if you think it did.

Although I would not give a small animal in a movie the proportions of a large one, it's unlikely that they will follow this rule, seeing as they haven't followed more obvious rules in the trilogy. And what do you think they'd prefer - having a 100 metre mosasaur, or a 20 metre-ish one? Surely 100 metres is a lot more than they need, and 20 metres is a colossal, yet more realistic size to go with.

It’s not about following rules (there are no real rules for them anyway), it’s about likelyhoods. How likely is it they’d show a shark that looks like a large great white (which, being a special effect, can only be because it was intended to), but make it little over a metre long? Not very imo.
Since the shark is the only thing for scale, and seems to be intended to be used for scale actually, I’m gonna assume that mosasaur is quite a bit too big.

I don't think they'd really care much about the shark's size. I myself didn't expect people to care this much about it (and even then, I haven't seen people outside this thread even mentioning the shark).

I think I’m the only one who really cares about that, and that’s only because I like size estimates. But in general, it doesn’t seem difficult to accept they’d oversize their mosasaur. In fact, I”d have expected them to oversize it even before I saw the trailer, but that footage is some decent evidence imo.

Then this means, based on what you agree with from what I've seen so far, that there is absolutely no way to tell how big the shark is

As I wrote, I’m quite sure it’s not a 4 footer. Beyond that, no, not really. But information about that may turn up, for example if we see a shot of a human standing next to the shark we can at least gauge its lenght.

Yes, though at least it does its job as a part of the movie nonetheless.

It will, probably. But the original JP wasn’t about humans genetically engineering monsters, it was rather about nature turning on humans who wanted to play god. The intention was to clone real dinosaurs, not build attractions based on them.
That’s a matter of taste. I’d also much rather like it if that "d.rex" wasn’t some strange human creation but a real species.

I think they care more about the entertainment it can provide.

Being a good movie and being entertaining don’t HAVE to be mutually exclusive.

I agree with this. After all, we'd get an entertaining movie, and the impact the trilogy has had on the debating areas is incredibly clear, so we would probably get a rise of less misinformed people on communities concerning debating on those animals.

I think originally JP didn’t just do a lot for the popularization of palaeontology (although I strongly disagree with the notion that people seriously interested in the field, as in students, future students or scholars of palaeontology would not be without it. No single movie can influence someone so much as to make something their profession. it may get children interested in dinosaurs, but that’s an entirely different thing from making someone spend their entire lifes studying them.), and it did actually have such a thing as a message (you know, something one could debate about). The next two were more and more repetitive and didn’t really do anything new except the introduction of a few new animals that didn’t do anything terribly spectacular, and a change of setting. That leaves me with discussing the scientific aspects, as there isn’t yet anything on the fictional part.

[Deleted]

Indeed. But did I get that right, you doubt that shark is more than 1.2m long?

Not what I said, I said I doubt it is too large, which is actually not that hard to assume.

If that shark is under average, that mosasaur head is still oversized. I don’t find it likely they’d take something so tiny that it isn’t, no. I already said why.

Taking the 2 metres you've considered, if I am not wrong, the mosasaur should be some 20+ metres, which doesn't make it outrageously large, seeing as it can easily be expected to be large in a movie where they want to make large animals, and also can.

Nowhere near it. If that shark is 2m long, the mosasaur’s skull lenght is 3.4m and its mandible lenght 3.6m. Not even pliosaur skulls that big have been recovered, the only marine animals currently known from skulls that big are cetaceans (although there’s the possibility of some giant ichthyosaurs reaching these skull lenght, depending on their built). By comparison, the largest mosasaur in several exceptionally large specimens that we surveyed in the largest mosasaur-thread has a mandible slightly over 2m long (and that’s exceptional, the majority of mosasaur specimens commonly listed as the "largest" have skulls quite a bit smallar, 1.4-1.6m).

My bad, miscalculated it. Still, I think the previous point explains this pretty well from my point of view.

Nowhere near it. If that shark is 2m long, the mosasaur’s skull lenght is 3.4m and its mandible lenght 3.6m. Not even pliosaur skulls that big have been recovered, the only marine animals currently known from skulls that big are cetaceans (although there’s the possibility of some giant ichthyosaurs reaching these skull lenght, depending on their built). By comparison, the largest mosasaur in several exceptionally large specimens that we surveyed in the largest mosasaur-thread has a mandible slightly over 2m long (and that’s exceptional, the majority of mosasaur specimens commonly listed as the "largest" have skulls quite a bit smallar, 1.4-1.6m).

Yes, I think we can expect some explanation in the movie itself.

That was my point. If I assume that’s a small shark, the mosasaur is still oversized significantly. in order to make its size consistent with the current real record holder, the shark would have to be comically tiny. That shark didn’t look like it was intended to be a neonate, but feel free to disagree if you think it did.

There could be a reason for it to be small, but I'm going with the possibility of the mosasaur's larger-than-average size being explained in the movie.

It’s not about following rules (there are no real rules for them anyway), it’s about likelyhoods. How likely is it they’d show a shark that looks like a large great white (which, being a special effect, can only be because it was intended to), but make it little over a metre long? Not very imo.
Since the shark is the only thing for scale, and seems to be intended to be used for scale actually, I’m gonna assume that mosasaur is quite a bit too big.

Its size is certainly over the top, though the issue is really by how much. Though this can be hard, seeing as the odds are that we might not get to know the shark's size either.

I think I’m the only one who really cares about that, and that’s only because I like size estimates. But in general, it doesn’t seem difficult to accept they’d oversize their mosasaur. In fact, I”d have expected them to oversize it even before I saw the trailer, but that footage is some decent evidence imo.

I agree, they do seem to have a thing for oversized animals anyway.

As I wrote, I’m quite sure it’s not a 4 footer. Beyond that, no, not really. But information about that may turn up, for example if we see a shot of a human standing next to the shark we can at least gauge its lenght.

Surprisingly, I haven't thought about that, though it does seem to me that this would be the only way to know the size (apart from people in the movie saying itself).

It will, probably. But the original JP wasn’t about humans genetically engineering monsters, it was rather about nature turning on humans who wanted to play god. The intention was to clone real dinosaurs, not build attractions based on them.
That’s a matter of taste. I’d also much rather like it if that "d.rex" wasn’t some strange human creation but a real species

Well, they did genetic engineering, though to a much lesser extent. And I guess they can still make the whole thing sound/look good.

Being a good movie and being entertaining don’t HAVE to be mutually exclusive.

I did not contradict this, but whether a movie is good or not can actually be based on many factors, including how entertaining it is.

I think originally JP didn’t just do a lot for the popularization of palaeontology (although I strongly disagree with the notion that people seriously interested in the field, as in students, future students or scholars of palaeontology would not be without it. No single movie can influence someone so much as to make something their profession. it may get children interested in dinosaurs, but that’s an entirely different thing from making someone spend their entire lifes studying them.), and it did actually have such a thing as a message (you know, something one could debate about). The next two were more and more repetitive and didn’t really do anything new except the introduction of a few new animals that didn’t do anything terribly spectacular, and a change of setting. That leaves me with discussing the scientific aspects, as there isn’t yet anything on the fictional part.

Maybe some few people were actually that heavily influenced by it, but that doesn't matter. I think we can agree that the trilogy did contribute a lot to places like Carnivora's dinosauria, and mostly Jurassic Park 3 contributing to all the fight debates. Moreover, it made Pivot fights popular, which made debating even more popular (and often stupid). Talking about which, expect many Pivot animations on Youtube and debates from June 12, 2015 and further.