|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 30, 2014 10:48:21 GMT 5
All this discussion about the mosasaur size recalls me the discussions about Godzilla's size when the first trailers came out. People were estimating it at 200-300-350 m back then comparing it with the buildings seen in the trailer. At the end, it is 110 m high. I'm sure it will be the same thing with the mosasaur. Oversized, yes, but not that much. The official depiction lists it at 14 metric tons, this is canon weight of the beast, so.... I'm betting on a 20-25 m range at the very most.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2014 13:02:59 GMT 5
Don't forget this is not Godzilla, just because it happened with one movie doesn't mean it will with another. Plus, the movie is known for its inaccuracies, so I doubt the length-mass ratios are necessarily realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 30, 2014 17:20:58 GMT 5
I do think the 20-30m range is seriously oversized for a mosasaur, nothing we’ve got even hints at that kind of size. The commonly cited maxima are still 15-18m, with most giant specimens around 11-13m.
I think the people in the movie saying something doesn’t tell a lot either, it’s imo more relevant whether the animals are actually portrayed the right size. I don’t care if some Jurassic park character sais its 100m long when it is not, in that case it’s simply the character that’s making a joke or is terribly bad at judging sizes. The shark’s size could be constrained fairly well if we have a person standing next to it, or at least it would show whether it’s larger or smaller than a human. That will then serve as a reliable scale as to whether or not the mosasaur is too big.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 30, 2014 23:24:21 GMT 5
You can definitely analyze it, just not to the point where a tiny scientific inaccuracy bothers you. I was talking about overanalyzing the film to the smallest details
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Nov 30, 2014 23:27:27 GMT 5
Hatzegopteryx.... I am disappointed in you! You got sucked into the unnecessary scientific discussion of this fictional film leaving me a loner on the side devoted just to enjoying what I am seeing instead of picking it apart like the dissection of a lamb eye!
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 30, 2014 23:29:25 GMT 5
You can definitely analyze it, just not to the point where a tiny scientific inaccuracy bothers you. I was talking about overanalyzing the film to the smallest details I'm certainly not talking about tiny details. If neither integument, nor functional anatomy, nor behaviour, nor size are accurate, what is? |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 30, 2014 23:44:39 GMT 5
Godzillasaurus, I m gonna to enjoy it too and focus on the good elements in it, both as entertainment and scientifically even if they're few.
Most paleontologists I ve seen discussing it said they will see it anyway.
And again that's just a trailer...
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 2, 2014 0:14:38 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 2, 2014 0:20:45 GMT 5
Thanks for sharing this. Are the artists now aware of this and have they reacted to it?
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 2, 2014 0:38:23 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 2, 2014 0:45:35 GMT 5
And I think this is my favourite: tyrantking.net/?p=782I would have written the same things, albeit likely less eloquently expressed… |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 2, 2014 0:48:13 GMT 5
From what remember, you already posted the second link. I don't care so much for accuracy, but a step backward appears to be more than just lazy. On the other hand, it is of course possible that they thought a frill looks cooler.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 2, 2014 0:51:04 GMT 5
Strange, I don’t remember having posted any opinions on the trailer before.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 2, 2014 1:20:36 GMT 5
Sorry then. Maybe it was Macronectes.
It had not been posted before you made your post
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Dec 2, 2014 1:37:31 GMT 5
I posted Brian Switek's thoughts on the whole "complainig about accuracy" thing.
|
|
