|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 26, 2015 1:51:59 GMT 5
I was not referring to you stating your view about feathered droms, but to the post where you called Skorpiovenator a backstabbing traitor which goes beyond stating an opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jun 26, 2015 1:57:35 GMT 5
which was also a statement that was melodramatic and unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Jun 26, 2015 1:58:11 GMT 5
Your right, technically that would be a truth lol.
Seriously though, why do some of you get so riled up if someone says something that the majority dosnt agree with?
|
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240 
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 26, 2015 2:05:38 GMT 5
Wow, just, wow.
I agree with everyone else cause they are RIGHT! I'm not like you, I don't agree with people who are dead wrong. I have evolved had a former now you should do the same instead of doing the opposite.
We don't get riled up, it's just that you on purposely disagree to start stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Jun 26, 2015 2:05:59 GMT 5
Nobody even got riled up -- they disagreed with your statement. that's it.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 26, 2015 2:07:44 GMT 5
Because we are running in circles (you claim the replies were offensive, I claim they weren't), let's discuss them. Here are the ones that directly refer to you:A simple counterargument.Use of the "Absence of evidence is no the evidence of absence" logic".A better explained form of my counterargument with more examples.A statement about your statement that did not become personal.
Your objections to our way of dealing with criticism are too general, I don't see what you mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 26, 2015 5:51:00 GMT 5
He is a little kid. They ask crazy, far fetched questions like that. I would have asked something like that if I was his age. Would you say I'm autistic? And the kid is smart. That dosent mean he has a problem. He's always arguing with numbers : "The road to the airport is 36 minutes" "How much weigh the island ?" "Mosasaur, 88 teeth" "There are 5 dinosaurs" "36...50...teeth, we need more teeth !" And even his mother has specific concerns about him in one scene of the movie. To me it's very much suggested. |
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 26, 2015 6:11:28 GMT 5
He is a little kid. They ask crazy, far fetched questions like that. I would have asked something like that if I was his age. Would you say I'm autistic? And the kid is smart. That dosent mean he has a problem. He's always arguing with numbers : "The road to the airport is 36 minutes So what? Dumb little kid question. " "How much weigh the island Something I would ask, a lot of people I know would have asked that. Again, little kid question. ?" "Mosasaur, 88 teeth" Very observant as little kids are. "There are 5 dinosaurs" "36...50...teeth, we need more teeth ! Same as above. " And even his mother has specific concerns about him in one scene of the movie. [br His mother is sending him and his brother to and island full of dinosaurs run by their aunt they haven't seen in seven years, wouldn't you be? |
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 26, 2015 6:12:01 GMT 5
I really messed that up. My post is inside that green box.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 26, 2015 12:15:09 GMT 5
at first. Then we told you that and why your view was wrong. Then you complained. You probably know it is wrong yourself, you are just doing this because you enjoy the drama. If not, give me a proper scientific argument suggesting that Deinonychus was not feathered.
No, what you received was a totally appropriate (and even remarkably elaborate and patient, considering the nature of your claim. I doubt many people would explain why Smilodon had fur in so many words to someone who doubts it). And you know very well why this is not the first time.
Because agreeing with the majority is so inherently wrong! For example, the majority would have us believe that 2 plus 2 equals 4.
So who is the one with the inappropriate reaction? Someone criticises your views on a scientific basis, and you immediately respond with an ad hominem attack?
What words?
In the occasion that there is aa scientific reason for it. You have not give such a reason. If you want to play the poor misunderstood genius, at least make it look as if what you claimed had the slightest justification. Right now, your only arguments for it are that nobody else believes it, which doesn't mean you have to believe it more, and that there is no clear proof of the contrary. Those are both ludicrous arguments, and you know that. As I already wrote, you probably know how wrong your claim was, too, but that is not actually of your concern.
In a nutshell, just stop it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jun 26, 2015 17:50:07 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 18, 2015 4:42:50 GMT 5
So, rather late, but I’ve watched JW now and can only concur with some of the impressions already described here.
The plot was utterly predictable, the acting and characters, mediocre (definitely no match for the first, or even the second one), the graphics, nothing special, the science (but beyond that, the animal behaviour and choices from a mere cineastic point of view), terrible, of course.
Only because my expectations were really low did I still somewhat enjoy watching it, but I must conclude, this is not what qualifies as a good film–at best, it’s not boring. If that was an attempt to revive the franchise, it sadly failed miserably. I’m lucky I didn’t grow up with the first movie, otherwise this would have probably made me very sad.
Somehow it didn’t manage to build up any proper suspense, the best it did were a few nice action sequences. Scientifically, beyond the obvious inaccuracies (missing feathers, wrinkled skin instead of scales, pronated and super-flexible arms, unrealistic neck-bite tolerance, totally ludicrous pterosaur anatomy and behaviour), I just kept thinking how much of a missed opportunity this was.
Imagine all the stuff they could have done (and explained better than what they showed in the end using the principles they already outlined)!
Who needs a swarm of naked, boring, ugly Pteranodon and rhamphorynchoid abominations if they could have had a group of 6m-tall azhdarchids keen on skewering and swallowing humans soar in? Who needs some weird hybrid creature when there are still tens of unused giant theropods (which you could have easily made more recognizable than the Indominus)? Who needs sauropods and ornithischians from the 60s when modern findings make them so much more exciting in every possible way?
And why always the same 5 overused animals (Velociraptor, Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus, Triceratops, some generic sauropod? I can understand that they’d want something new and more exciting than a real dinosaur if they seriously think that what they showed was already everything the clade has to offer! And if they absolutely need some astronomically huge animal (Mosasaurus in this case), why not use a real super-giant, like a truly large sauropod, in which such sizes would even be realistic?
What I also found sad is that this time they didn’t even have a palaeontologist character, it’s as if the science was too irrelevant to even deserve a representative any more. Seriously, how come the most educated person about dinosaurs was that little boy with the thing for numbers?
This just wasn’t a proper dinosaur film. A proper dinosaur film would have to attempt showing them as real, convincing animals, not just monsters intend on killing. Even parts of the plot as it was would become more believable if the carnivores weren’t all just trying to kill everything that moves.
Honestly, the best thing about the movie was this piece of soundtrack based on the original theme:
The best scene was probably the one with the crow, in the beginning of the movie. They could have built so much more on that, regarding how wrong the public’s view about dinosaurs is and what they would have actually been like…
PS: As for the mosasaur, I think after watching the film it’s clear that it was in fact even more oversized than my earlier estimate suggested, there’s no way that shark wasn’t over 3m, and that’s consistent with how it grabbed a 15m+ "theropod" and pulled it underwater. Truly in big baleen whale territory, and not just in terms of length.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 20, 2015 17:52:33 GMT 5
No the mosasaur is not that oversized, except in the shot where it swallows a shark (and the purpose of the scene is not to show it can swallow a 5 m shark but simply that it can swallow some shark). The I. rex is currently 12 m in the movie, not 15 m plus, Wu says it will be 15 m. I've compared a hypothetical 18 m Tylosaurus with a 12 m Tyrannosaurus and this is pretty much a similar disparity to the one seen in the movie. No need to start an endless discussion about that, I'm really not interested in that at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jul 20, 2015 18:13:35 GMT 5
Yes, I’ve seen the movie, I also saw that the shark was bigger than a human, which means that the mosasaur was way oversized (as per my earlier estimate, or probably more).
The movie claimed it to reach 16m, if anyone stated it to be 12m at the moment I missed that part. No idea whether it was fully grown (that also depends on how oversized their T. rex was). Even if that had been a 12m theropod, the mosasaur would still have been larger than any known one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jul 20, 2015 18:45:08 GMT 5
Like I said, the only shot where it is out of proportions is the shot with the shark but the purpose of the shot is just to show a huge reptile eating a shark, not a 40 m reptile eating a 5 m shark, unlike WWD where they intetionnally and clearly decided to show a supersized 25 m Liopleurodon. But in all the others shots, the mossaur looks more like 18-20 m which corresponds to its official movie description? It still is an oversized mosasaur, just not THAT oversized. Even if some shots show it very large this is more a perspective thing than an intentional, explicit exaggerations like the WWD pliosaurs.
Wu clearly states the I. rex "will be no less than 50 feet", which implies it is not yet full grown at this point of the movie. You just have to check the official depiction, it is currently 12-13 m. The T. rex is 12 m.
Anyway overall I enjoyed the movie. Like any movie it is not perfect but for you people complaining about the Indominus yet just don't understand what was the purpose of it, or don't want to understand.
If you can't forget a little bit your sciency extremism for 2 hours don't be surprise you can't enjoy it.
|
|
