|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 17, 2015 2:43:53 GMT 5
From what I've seen it combines spinosauresque arms with a carcharodontosaur's overall built and (somewhat exagerated, depending on the source) and a few features of the skull and the scaly skin of an abelisaur (the latter specifically taken from Carnotaurus). The skull bears a degree of reminiscence to both abelisaurs and carnosaurs, but somehow the proportions andd tooth spacing all seem off. And, apparently, the ridiculous bloodlust of their Achillobator-abominations. The closest real life analogy would be carcharodontosaurs, but not because they were particularly similar to the monster shown in the film, just because there aren't that many lineages of giant theropods. A real carcharodontosaur would have been more interesting to see imo. Using this thing to begin with made it look as if there were no real theropods left to use for the role, which is just BS. Not a single carnosaur has been shown on JP so far, despite the vast majority of giant 12m+ theropods being carnosaurs (actually I know only 3 or 4 that aren't. The use of a real giant theropod would have been great but if you say you didn't get the purpose of the made up hybrid in the movie. |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 17, 2015 23:56:38 GMT 5
I get the purpose people who liked it like to interpret it to have, but I cannot really appreciate it for the reason I mentioned. There would have been far better ways to bring the message across, for example by explaining how inaccurate all the previous animals turned out because of them messing with their genes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 18, 2015 1:59:55 GMT 5
Well this is actually explained in the movie, that all the animals are likely pretty different from the originals.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 18, 2015 2:29:22 GMT 5
Well this is actually explained in the movie, that all the animals are likely pretty different from the originals. Well, that renders "consistency" a pretty lame excuse for omitting all the feathers, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 18, 2015 3:53:18 GMT 5
Not to me, it simply explains it in one way.
Frankly I m now tired of this discussion regarding the lack of feathers in JW, I ve been prepared to it since a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Jun 18, 2015 5:59:10 GMT 5
Well this is actually explained in the movie, that all the animals are likely pretty different from the originals. Well, that renders "consistency" a pretty lame excuse for omitting all the feathers, doesn't it? No it doesn't. It's a movie made for regular people, regular people who at best don't care about feathers and at worst would be pissed off the dinosaurs don't look the same. It's a movie, not a documentary quit being so butthurt aboat it. |
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240 
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 18, 2015 7:06:53 GMT 5
I'm gonna have to side with grey and dragon here, if this were a documentary then we would all be talkin abou the inaccuracies. But this is a MOVIE, a franchise known for their mistakes, we could just endlessly drone on about the spinosaurus or the velociraptors but we don't cause it's just a movie. I think the reason they choose o-rex was vecause other true theropods were too "mainstream" and to "similar" to t.rex.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 18, 2015 12:47:45 GMT 5
I'm fine with that it is totally inaccurate (most documentaries are terribly inaccurate too after all), but that makes it a monster movie, not a dinosaur movie, and certainly not the dinosaur movie in line with the science of its day that Jurassic park used to be.
|
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 18, 2015 14:46:50 GMT 5
I'm fine with that it is totally inaccurate (most documentaries are terribly inaccurate too after all), but that makes it a monster movie, not a dinosaur movie, and certainly not the dinosaur movie in line with the science of its day that Jurassic park used to be. Would it really make sense for it to be one hundred percent accurate? That dosent line up with the other movies. This movie wasn't made for people like you and me who actually no something about donosaurs and Hollywood always tries to make anumals into monsters, ever heard of jaws? AndI know it doesn't go with the first movie that's the point! Dr.wuu ALWAYS wanted to create the monsters, but Attenborough never let him so when he died that gave him a chance tricerat the hybrid monster he always wanted. Masanari never knew this. Just watch the argument between mr.wu and masanari. |
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Jun 18, 2015 21:39:56 GMT 5
The first Jurassic Park tried to be accurate, the dinosaurs it brought to the screen were based on the research of the 70's and 80's. If it had simply gone with the popular public view of dinosaurs at the time then it would have been filled with slow, tail dragging lizards.
Jurassic World could have done the same, and brought the research of the 90's and 2000's to the public of 2015. But it didn't.
|
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 18, 2015 23:17:11 GMT 5
I know that. So what's your point?
|
|
blaze
Paleo-artist 
Posts: 766
|
Post by blaze on Jun 18, 2015 23:47:04 GMT 5
That Jurassic World is just a dumb blockbuster film that lacks the gravitas of the original? I mean, do anyone here really thinks that Jurassic Park would have been the success it was had they gone with the status quo of the public understanding of dinoaurs? JP was bold and innovative, JW is just safe.
That's what it is to me anyway, I don't know if on purpose or by accident on youtube and imdb conversations fans have given me "permission" to put dinosaurs in quotes when talking about the "dinosaurs" in the JP franchise, to me those are not dinosaurs and to us that care about actual dinosaurs, the better if we distance ourselves from those movie monsters, JP is not for dinosaur fans, is an awesomebro movie, as John Conway would put it.
|
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Jun 20, 2015 5:11:49 GMT 5
JP is a MOVIE FRANCHISE! not a natgeo documentary, continuity beats scientific accuracy in this case.
|
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 20, 2015 5:48:23 GMT 5
I agree 100%.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Jun 20, 2015 6:43:27 GMT 5
JP is a MOVIE FRANCHISE! not a natgeo documentary, continuity beats scientific accuracy in this case. Sure it's a movie, but as a movie I maintain that it would have been better off had it attempted to revolutionize it's dinosaurs and brought them up-to-date with the scientific literature. It's what the original Jurassic Park did after all, to an extent. It is established canon that the JP dinosaurs do not look like real ones, and I'm pretty sure one of the novels mentions the fact that the dinosaurs are "upgraded" in batches as more of their DNA is accumulated, allowing for more accurate reconstructions. 20 years of DNA collection and technological advancements could easily be used to justify the new look of the dinosaurs. But Jurassic World did not do that, it took the safe and uninspiring route of keeping the models the same, and in many cases the models are even worse than the standard set by the first film. In Jurassic World Triceratops and Stegosaurus are apparently tail-draggers (!) while their attempt at a Dimorphodon was terrifyingly bad. |
|
