• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Jurassic GAF |OT| The Park is closed, the World is open

C

Cow Mengde

Banned
WhiteRabbitEXE said:
Not really, no.
Click to expand...

You're also not taking preservation bias into account.

I'm not saying how old a T.rex can live, but assuming their life span is around 30 years old because we found 1 specimen in that age range is not good enough.

Sue is only 28 when it died. The newest T.rex Trix is rumored to be around 30. Scotty on the other hand cannot be properly calculated. Might be much much older than Sue or Trix.
 
W

WhiteRabbitEXE

Member
Cow Mengde said:
You're also not taking preservation bias into account.

I'm not saying how old a T.rex can live, but assuming their life span is around 30 years old because we found 1 specimen in that age range is not good enough.

Sue is only 28 when it died. The newest T.rex Trix is rumored to be around 30. Scotty on the other hand cannot be properly calculated. Might be much much older than Sue or Trix.
Click to expand...

Barring animals predated upon by humans (who don't select for young/weak/ill/elderly as other predators do, but often the exact opposite), most animals that make it to adulthood are most likely to die later in life (this is why substantial variances in human life-expectancies are often overwhelmingly due to skews in infinite/child/adolescent morality rates, rather than variances in the upper-echelon of ages, which are comparatively much more stable across populations), and I'm not aware of any biases against the preservation of remains of elderly animals. Across 50 (fake edit: 60+) samples it's unlikely an existing range would preclude a range of significance anyway - you won't see a range largely of 0-30 when there's also animals regularly hitting say, 50, because that's statistically unlikely (but not impossible, though nothing is).

It's not as if the entire basis is derived from the fact that "well, we haven't found a 50 year old, so clearly they don't exist" either. There are models for these kind of figures that take into account bone growth patterns based on collected fossils, age ranges of contemporary close relatives, and age ranges of closely related predecessor and successor species, which add a combination of additional data points and solid statistical models to calculate likely age ranges for the species.

You're casting a lot of doubt onto the research into T-Rex solely because of limited samples, and yet T-Rex is very heavily represented in comparison to the vast majority of dinosaur fossil record (and even most species that went extinct within the last couple hundred thousand years - many hominids, one of the most heavily researched groups, are represented by single incomplete specimens - as are a significant amount of, if not most, dinosaur species). Even the most heavily documented dinosaur genera are represented by a few hundred specimens, and those are spread out across several species. So saying "only dozens of samples" is kind of misleading, because those are pretty impressive numbers, and dismissing any research into species with those numbers, or less, pretty much means dismissing research into most species that didn't go extinct within the last few centuries, or less.

Also, I'm not actually aware of any even significant debate into the projected lifespans of T-Rex either, though I would absolutely be interested if there are any. Most debates on T-Rex are centered around feather coverage, locomotion, and predation tactics. The closest I'm aware of would be the general debate on dinosaur metabolisms, which could throw wrenches into a lot of models and does prompt debate on some super-large dinosaurs like sauropods. But to my knowledge there's a reasonable degree of consensus in that area as far as therapods in particular are concerned, given we have a decent read on what there lifestyle would necessitate, sizes aren't so large the warm-blooded models get tricky, and there being a relatively clear path from certain portions of therapoda (specifically Coelurosauria) to modern birds (whereas the vast majority of dinosaurs represented dead-end evolutionary lines), which provides a lot of illumination.
 
C

Cow Mengde

Banned
WhiteRabbitEXE said:
Barring animals predated upon by humans (who don't select for young/weak/ill/elderly as other predators do, but often the exact opposite), most animals that make it to adulthood are most likely to die later in life (this is why substantial variances in human life-expectancies are often overwhelmingly due to skews in infinite/child/adolescent morality rates, rather than variances in the upper-echelon of ages, which are comparatively much more stable across populations), and I'm not aware of any biases against the preservation of remains of elderly animals. Across 50 (fake edit: 60+) samples it's unlikely an existing range would preclude a range of significance anyway - you won't see a range largely of 0-30 when there's also animals regularly hitting say, 50, because that's statistically unlikely (but not impossible, though nothing is).

It's not as if the entire basis is derived from the fact that "well, we haven't found a 50 year old, so clearly they don't exist" either. There are models for these kind of figures that take into account bone growth patterns based on collected fossils, age ranges of contemporary close relatives, and age ranges of closely related predecessor and successor species, which add a combination of additional data points and solid statistical models to calculate likely age ranges for the species.

You're casting a lot of doubt onto the research into T-Rex solely because of limited samples, and yet T-Rex is very heavily represented in comparison to the vast majority of dinosaur fossil record (and even most species that went extinct within the last couple hundred thousand years - many hominids, one of the most heavily researched groups, are represented by single incomplete specimens - as are a significant amount of, if not most, dinosaur species). Even the most heavily documented dinosaur genera are represented by a few hundred specimens, and those are spread out across several species. So saying "only dozens of samples" is kind of misleading, because those are pretty impressive numbers, and dismissing any research into species with those numbers, or less, pretty much means dismissing research into most species that didn't go extinct within the last few centuries, or less.

Also, I'm not actually aware of any even significant debate into the projected lifespans of T-Rex either, though I would absolutely be interested if there are any. Most debates on T-Rex are centered around feather coverage, locomotion, and predation tactics. The closest I'm aware of would be the general debate on dinosaur metabolisms, which could throw wrenches into a lot of models and does prompt debate on some super-large dinosaurs like sauropods. But to my knowledge there's a reasonable degree of consensus in that area as far as therapods in particular are concerned, given we have a decent read on what there lifestyle would necessitate, sizes aren't so large the warm-blooded models get tricky, and there being a relatively clear path from certain portions of therapoda (specifically Coelurosauria) to modern birds (whereas the vast majority of dinosaurs represented dead-end evolutionary lines), which provides a lot of illumination.
Click to expand...

It's not so much as a debate as paleontologists warn (Tom Holtz) that it's too premature to say 30 is the upper limit.

Again, things like preservation bias and the fact that we can't figure out how old Scotty is is just some of the reasons we should hold off on calling things too early.

Hell, let me tweet a couple of paleontologists and ask what they think of this.
 
D

Demoncarnotaur

Member
strafer said:
OH MAN OH MAN OH MAN OH MAN OH MAN

THE EXPLORER
Click to expand...

Judging by Bayona's tweet, this is before the art department gave it some love:

3RXDrgw.jpg
 
A

Amalthea

Banned
Personal plot speculation:
Isla Nublar is indeed being destroyed by volcanic activity and Hammonds former bussiness partner wants to rescue the dinosaurs from the island, hiring Pratt among the evacuation team.
Officially the team including Pratt assume that they'll simply transport them to one of the neighbouring islands but since Hammonds partner is somewhat of a kooky dinosaur-nut he actually has the dinosaurs shipped to England for his personal collection.
Of course shit goes wrong and the dinos escape including a set-piece set in his mansions personal museum where the trapped characters don't know for sure wich dino is just a model and wich ones are real and the obligatory "London gets wrecked by a foreign force"-scene meaning that the title Fallen Kingdom was just a red herring to fool the audience into thinking that it alludes to the destruction of Nublar.
 
D

Demoncarnotaur

Member
Whoops, didn't mean to turn that into a double post.

Amalthea said:
Personal plot speculation:
Isla Nublar is indeed being destroyed by volcanic activity and Hammonds former bussiness partner wants to rescue the dinosaurs from the island, hiring Pratt among the evacuation team.
Officially the team including Pratt assume that they'll simply transport them to one of the neighbouring islands but since Hammonds partner is somewhat of a kooky dinosaur-nut he actually has the dinosaurs shipped to England for his personal collection.
Of course shit goes wrong and the dinos escape including a set-piece set in his mansions personal museum where the trapped characters don't know for sure wich dino is just a model and wich ones are real and the obligatory "London gets wrecked by a foreign force"-scene meaning that the title Fallen Kingdom was just a red herring to fool the audience into thinking that it alludes to the destruction of Nublar.
Click to expand...


Pure speculation :
swap London for somewhere else, but yep. Also, I bet he's selling them and they end up all over the place.
 
W

WhiteRabbitEXE

Member
strafer said:
Brandon what did you do :(
Click to expand...

Self-exile.

Amalthea said:
Personal plot speculation:
Isla Nublar is indeed being destroyed by volcanic activity and Hammonds former bussiness partner wants to rescue the dinosaurs from the island, hiring Pratt among the evacuation team.
Officially the team including Pratt assume that they'll simply transport them to one of the neighbouring islands but since Hammonds partner is somewhat of a kooky dinosaur-nut he actually has the dinosaurs shipped to England for his personal collection.
Of course shit goes wrong and the dinos escape including a set-piece set in his mansions personal museum where the trapped characters don't know for sure wich dino is just a model and wich ones are real and the obligatory "London gets wrecked by a foreign force"-scene meaning that the title Fallen Kingdom was just a red herring to fool the audience into thinking that it alludes to the destruction of Nublar.
Click to expand...

Demoncarnotaur said:
Pure speculation :
swap London for somewhere else, but yep. Also, I bet he's selling them and they end up all over the place.
Click to expand...

Still wondering just exactly where Ian fits into all this though. Like, I doubt he's all that interested in trying to preserve the dinosaurs, and given everything, I think his stance on nature itself wiping out all of these custom, man-made creatures should be pretty clear. :p
 
C

Contica

Unconfirmed Member
Am I the only one who's starting to get a little bit tired of the same dinos every time? I love trike and stego, two of my favorites, but I've seen them a few times now, you know?
How about something else? Styracosaurus, pachyrinosaurus, therizinosaurus, you name it.
 
Jawmuncher

Jawmuncher

Member
Contica said:
Am I the only one who's starting to get a little bit tired of the same dinos every time? I love trike and stego, two of my favorites, but I've seen them a few times now, you know?
How about something else? Styracosaurus, pachyrinosaurus, therizinosaurus, you name it.
Click to expand...

I would like some more variety in the carnivores for sure
 
G

GAMEPROFF

Banned
Contica said:
Am I the only one who's starting to get a little bit tired of the same dinos every time? I love trike and stego, two of my favorites, but I've seen them a few times now, you know?
How about something else? Styracosaurus, pachyrinosaurus, therizinosaurus, you name it.
Click to expand...

I would love to see that but I love more that they not shoving dinosaurs out of their asses. Didnt liked the sudden introduction of the Spino as well.

But I would love to see a young T-Rex. Not a super young like in The Lost World, but more like the young one in the novel, a specimen who is already larger then a human and would be threat.

And since we have dino-experts here, I would love to see a great illustration how this would look like :D
 
C

Contica

Unconfirmed Member
GAMEPROFF said:
I would love to see that but I love more that they not shoving dinosaurs out of their asses. Didnt liked the sudden introduction of the Spino as well.

But I would love to see a young T-Rex. Not a super young like in The Lost World, but more like the young one in the novel, a specimen who is already larger then a human and would be threat.

And since we have dino-experts here, I would love to see a great illustration how this would look like :D
Click to expand...

Damn, that would be great! I loved the encounter with the young T-Rex in the book. Had the figure as well.

I don't want just a flood of new dinosaurs, and I don't want the new big bad like the spino was, I just want variety. Something else. Even if they're just in the background. I hope the Carnotaurus rumors are true though, would love to see that on the big screen.
 
W

WhiteRabbitEXE

Member
Contica said:
Am I the only one who's starting to get a little bit tired of the same dinos every time? I love trike and stego, two of my favorites, but I've seen them a few times now, you know?
How about something else? Styracosaurus, pachyrinosaurus, therizinosaurus, you name it.
Click to expand...

Well, I mean, every movie has introduced no less than 3 new species, and a fair few get major sequences - stego scene, game trail scene, and compy attack in TLW; the main "villain" for JPIII, and essentially the Pteranodon scene since it never got it's moment in TLW; and the bulk of JW was new creatures with significant screen-time.

But I'm always down for more, that's for sure, especially less depicted creatures.

Contica said:
I don't want just a flood of new dinosaurs, and I don't want the new big bad like the spino was, I just want variety. Something else. Even if they're just in the background. I hope the Carnotaurus rumors are true though, would love to see that on the big screen.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling there will be a lot of new background dinos, given the potential nature of the film.
 
M

MoonsaultSlayer

Member
I'm not sure who cares to play this anymore, but I thought I remember being able to escape the (I think) Triceratops paddock in Lego Jurassic World before an update. So I deleted the game and save data, completed the first film and collected 50 gold bricks just to access the dino-pad in that zone and sure enough, I was able to escape.

It's also fun getting a chance to play it from scratch again with my son on his summer vacation. But now our dino hide n seek arena is much larger =].
 
D

Demoncarnotaur

Member
Contica said:
Am I the only one who's starting to get a little bit tired of the same dinos every time? I love trike and stego, two of my favorites, but I've seen them a few times now, you know?
How about something else? Styracosaurus, pachyrinosaurus, therizinosaurus, you name it.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed.

I think this movie should satiate some of those needs, though not with any of those species.

GAMEPROFF said:
I think I have to reread the book at some point.
Click to expand...

Always a good idea.

strafer said:
Wait what? He's not coming back?
Click to expand...

Don't you mean extinct?
 
T

Toxi

Banned
Contica said:
Am I the only one who's starting to get a little bit tired of the same dinos every time? I love trike and stego, two of my favorites, but I've seen them a few times now, you know?
How about something else? Styracosaurus, pachyrinosaurus, therizinosaurus, you name it.
Click to expand...

Jawmuncher said:
I would like some more variety in the carnivores for sure
Click to expand...
Add Carnotaurus, the speedster that skipped arm day.

090__carnotaurus_sastrei_by_green_mamba-d5lr3r4.png
 
H

HP_Wuvcraft

Banned
Amalthea said:
Personal plot speculation:
Isla Nublar is indeed being destroyed by volcanic activity and Hammonds former bussiness partner wants to rescue the dinosaurs from the island, hiring Pratt among the evacuation team.
Officially the team including Pratt assume that they'll simply transport them to one of the neighbouring islands but since Hammonds partner is somewhat of a kooky dinosaur-nut he actually has the dinosaurs shipped to England for his personal collection.
Of course shit goes wrong and the dinos escape including a set-piece set in his mansions personal museum where the trapped characters don't know for sure wich dino is just a model and wich ones are real and the obligatory "London gets wrecked by a foreign force"-scene meaning that the title Fallen Kingdom was just a red herring to fool the audience into thinking that it alludes to the destruction of Nublar.
Click to expand...

Part one sounds solid but part two doesn't mesh with the techno-organic theme we know they want.

Theory: Ian Malcolm is the celebrity spokesperson/consultant to Not Apple.
 
C

Cow Mengde

Banned
They should introduce Yi Qi and Deinocheirus, but that would be too modern for this movie. Maybe they'll have Dimetrodon, Trilobite and Wool Mammoth be introduced as new dinosaurs in Jurassic World 2.
 
W

WhiteRabbitEXE

Member
Cow Mengde said:
They should introduce Yi Qi and Deinocheirus, but that would be too modern for this movie. Maybe they'll have Dimetrodon, Trilobite and Wool Mammoth be introduced as new dinosaurs in Jurassic World 2.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty firmly in team Mesozoic-only (well, I guess Paleozoic wouldn't be terrible, but definitely no Cenozoic), unless it's kept way in the background. I certainly don't want a mammoth/T-Rex showdown or a bunch of Smilodons running around Sorna or something. :p
 
J

JeffZero

Purple Drazi
Will miss you, brandon. We didn't talk much but I've always had a lot of respect for your glass half-full philosophy. It's mine, too.

Hype for the Explorer.
 
F

Fuchsdh

Member
What would be the point of introducing raptor species that are the same as the raptors we've got now. They're clearly (and personally, I think rightly) not going to try and reorient the existing dinos in their more probably phenotypes now, so I don't see how most people would even be able to tell the difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PlayStation Plus Monthly Games for June: NBA 2K23, Jurassic World Evolution 2 and Trek to Yomi
News 2
67
3K
R6Rider replied
Jurassic World started life as a sequel to flawed Jurassic Park game Trespasser
Opinion Game Dev
4
823
Rambone replied
Jurassic World Evolution 2 is coming to Xbox Game Pass today (VGC)
Opinion News
1
643
Punished Miku replied
Jurassic World Evolution 2 | Review Thread
2
73
7K
Vick replied
Matt McMuscles | Trespasser: Jurassic Park - What Happened?
Analysis Retro Trailer
9
1K
Drizzlehell replied
Top Bottom