Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2014 5:07:51 GMT 5
Godzillasaurus, it's theropod's fault  Seriously though, I'm somewhat... arguing against doing what I'm doing. Yeah, it makes about that much sense. theropod, it is oversized, but it's a science fiction movie - they made it larger by purpose because they wanted to, and because they also could do it. They had the technology for such a feat. Seeing it that way, it actually sounds a lot more reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 3, 2014 20:24:54 GMT 5
Not to mention how they are actually constructing their own dinosaurs in this movie (D-rex is supposedly a hybrid)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2014 20:56:21 GMT 5
It's a quadrihybrid.
|
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Dec 4, 2014 0:51:20 GMT 5
It's fake.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 5, 2014 9:24:54 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 5, 2014 11:11:11 GMT 5
The person who wrote that failed to account for the different angle the lights used as a reference are seen at, and it seems to assume the mosasaur is in the plane of the railing. And if the shark in 6ft, zu the mosasaur is still vastly oversized. In fact, nothing I wrote on this thread assumed a 6 metre shark or used any of the people for reference, but it's clreatly more than 60 ft. |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 5, 2014 11:36:52 GMT 5
The guy is perhaps missing some points but that's no worse than the people absolutely wanting to suggest a ridiculous 50-60 m mosasaur, while Horner said the movie creature indeed is oversized but just not that much.
My guess is somewhere in the 60-75 feet range. It is oversized but I'm sure the creature itself will be only slightly oversized. There's no question they put a 50 m mosasaur in JW. Anyway discussing the size of a critter briefly spotted in the movie trailer is really not that important...
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 5, 2014 13:52:58 GMT 5
Nobody here is talking about a 50-60m mosasaur, but the mosasaur as shown there is still about 4 times more massive than the current record holder, even if that guy's estimate (which is too conservative) for the shark's length is correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Dec 5, 2014 14:21:00 GMT 5
I still believe based on the elements that the JW mosasaur will end up at 20 m or so. The analysis of the shots in an initial trailer are irrlevant to me.
There was the same speculations last years with the trailer of the new Godzilla, based on the first glimpses and shots many estimated Godzilla to be 250-320 m high using the famous San Francisco buildings surrounding him in the trailer, while he was finally 110 m high.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 5, 2014 14:44:56 GMT 5
Was it realky that tall, or did somebody claim it to be that tall?
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 5, 2014 20:16:23 GMT 5
From what I know, it was 120 to 150 m tall, at least the fun paper claimed this: deepseanews.com/2014/05/godzilla/But this is not terribly different from 110 m, so it doesn't matter. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 5, 2014 20:58:03 GMT 5
From what I know, it was 120 to 150 m tall, at least the fun paper claimed this: deepseanews.com/2014/05/godzilla/But this is not terribly different from 110 m, so it doesn't matter. The question is whether that's the size it was shown at in the film. If in the film you see it next to a 200m tall building, and Godzilla is taller, then I don't care wether supplementary material sais it's just 110m. Of course that's just an example, I haven't seen godzilla, and the relevance isn't the same. In the case of the mosasaur, the size I care about is the size it appears to have in the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 5, 2014 22:28:04 GMT 5
Well, using information like supplementary material has an advantage over using the size of other objects in the movie because we don't know if something got over or something else undersized. And after all, "this building is 200 m tall" is not very different from "this thing is 110 m tall".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2014 22:29:50 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Dec 5, 2014 22:31:01 GMT 5
I’m simply assuming that things like humans or well-known buildings (that actually exist and whose height is known) would not be over- or undersized, hence they are what serves for scale. Of course unless you use atoms for scale, all size depends on the metrics you use, but we’re speaking in human terms.
|
|
