It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for a mosasaur that recently died to wash up on shore and have a mosquito take a drink.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Jurassic World Official Trailer
- Thread starter skynidas
- Start date
- Status
It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility for a mosasaur that recently died to wash up on shore and have a mosquito take a drink.
Moviebob gives his five cents about the JW trailer and the feather debate in the newest Big Picture.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/9929-Feathered-Dinosaurs-Arent-Cool
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/9929-Feathered-Dinosaurs-Arent-Cool
Couldnt agree more @ feather talk
Green Mamba
Member
He's getting his wish--seems much of the production is being made with a similarly backwards worldview and sees it more pertinent to pander to 20 year old nostalgia than it does to the science that actually made that 20 year old nostalgia a reality.
It seems that a lot of the movie-going audience isn't going to find feathered dinosaurs intimidating/cool, much less a Jurassic Park film that has its foundations on a certain look.
There will/should be a new dinosaur film franchise that will take into account all the scientific evidence that is out there, but chances are that a action-thriller about dinosaurs getting cut loose in a theme park probably won't be the most conducive avenue for its priorities.
I think there's actually several ways to please both sides of the debate without either being felt left out. Having pterodactyls, microraptors and other dromaesaurids feathered, and include other dinos like the super-feathery Yutyrannus. State that Pratt's raptors are based on old Isla Sorna material. Done.
And Bob is wrong about the T-Rex part, I believe. As far as I know, there's not enough to suggest conclusively that T-Rex, at least not a fully grown adult, had feathers. Other tyrannosaurids definitely and possible young and juvenile T-Rex maybe. Heck, Paleontologist-GAF please chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.
At any rate, Classic Rex is in the film. It makes sense that she's not feathered regardless of the science.
And Bob is wrong about the T-Rex part, I believe. As far as I know, there's not enough to suggest conclusively that T-Rex, at least not a fully grown adult, had feathers. Other tyrannosaurids definitely and possible young and juvenile T-Rex maybe. Heck, Paleontologist-GAF please chime in and correct me if I'm wrong.
At any rate, Classic Rex is in the film. It makes sense that she's not feathered regardless of the science.
Green Mamba
Member
Funny that it was apparently in Jurassic Park's priorities 20 years ago. Jurassic Park wasn't perfect by any means, but, especially compared to any other larger budget works of the day, it did go through pains to bring dinosaurs into the modern era. Jurassic World, on the other hand, is deliberately holding them back.
Jurassic Park has an absolute strangle-hold on the public's vision of dinosaurs, and I don't think any film will ever have that much sway on public on the subject again. It looms too great in the public subconscious. No film will ever have that impact again--it was the right place and right time. The next best bet would be a Jurassic Park revival, and, well, they passed the buck there.
Anton Sugar
Member
Basically "I want dinosaurs to look scary" BS.
bengraven
Member
Everything in the paleolithic era had feathers. Even the palm fronds and ferns.
You ever walk into a chicken coop and are spitting out feathers because the very air is saturated with them? You haven't? Oh, well you'd know what it's like to live 65 million years ago if you did.
You ever walk into a chicken coop and are spitting out feathers because the very air is saturated with them? You haven't? Oh, well you'd know what it's like to live 65 million years ago if you did.
^The last time I was in a chicken coop I got yelled at by the teacher for trying to make the chickens leave me alone. I didn't cough up any feathers though.
I think the premise of Bob's argument is flawed. If I understood him right, he wants to see the same old raptors and Rexes that he found cool. He can. But feathered dinos and others could easily have been in the movie.
I think the premise of Bob's argument is flawed. If I understood him right, he wants to see the same old raptors and Rexes that he found cool. He can. But feathered dinos and others could easily have been in the movie.
More_Badass
Member
What's wrong with that?
Pretty much all this. I get that the feather thing has been proven in fossils, but JP was never accurate and went the fantasy route. Dilophasarus being tiny (or a baby) and spitting with a frill... this was to go along with the "huh, we didn't know that until we hatched them!" There's still plenty we don't know. Velociraptors being human-sized and not turkey-sized. Yeah just wouldn't work in the movie. The movie-sized Utahraptor look totally works best.
To jump and suddenly have the dinos evolve in 20 years would make it weird for me. I have some possible theories too to make things more scientific: The original frog DNA. Perhaps that made them more reptilian than bird-like? Another thing I've wondered too, is if all raptor etc fossils have been found with feathers? Have there been featherless specimins found? Perhaps you could say that these dinos are a sort of... pre-evolved form?
Either way, JP created a dinosaur image, and bringing in all the new science just wouldn't work. (Note: I do prefer my featherless dinos :x)
Anton Sugar
Member
I was hoping for a more nuanced argument than "I'm not scared of mutated parrots!"
Nevermind that we've never really had anyone attempt to portray feathered predators on-screen before, so how do we know they're not scary? Velociraptors are scary because Jurassic Park made them scary. No one outside of the dinosaur world knew what the hell a velociraptor was prior to 1993.
What I am trying to say is, it's all in the execution. There is a reason why the T-Rex in JP3 is not terrifying on sight: it pops its head up from a carcass and gives a goofy roar, then turns into a CG monster.
Compare that to how Spielberg handled the introduction of Rex in JP1, or even the raptors. We are scared of these creatures because the movie is effective at making them scary.
It was a priority for Jurassic Park, but for very specific things. Spielberg wanted the dinosaurs to behave like natural animals and asked paleos for help. Making the dinosaurs posture and move like birds was its single biggest contribution, something that has been picked up and used in every dinosaur film since (even Land of the Lost). I don't think how accurate the dinosaurs purely looked in JP was a priority however, given tiny frilled venom-spitting dilophosaurus, a chewing brachiasaur and giant velicraptors who possess remarkable problem-solving intelligence; which served to create better drama and thrills.
Well he comes from a position i fundamentally disagree with: Dinos with feathers aren't cool.
To me, Dinos with feathers are more cool, so it'd be a win win.
Tathanen
Get Inside Her!
Guys mosasaurs aren't dinosaurs come on I keep seeing this in here. Just like the pteranodons.
Anton Sugar
Member
Demoncarnotaur
Member
You can easily have feathered and 'scary' dinosaurs side by side. And you can easily have scary feathered dinosaurs.
Before people start citing Frog DNA let's try to remember that it was a MacGuffin for sequential hermaphroditism, and that Jurassic Park strove to put mostly accurate Dinosaurs on the big screen. It was explicitly said: they aimed to make a movie about animals, not monsters. Yes, creative liberties were taken, and that's fine- but damn I would be lying to say I am not bummed that Jurassic World didn't adopt modern dinosaur science into the mix of things. There are so many experts out there ready and willing to help create a state of the art dinosaur movie, and they all seem to be saying they're weren't approached.
Now, I am fine with the featherless Raptors and T-Rex- in fact, I love it. Those are fantastic classic Jurassic Park designs. But, it's a new park populated by new Dinosaurs. Some of these new players could have sported some plumage and accurate biology.
I can't help but feel the I-Rex is a commentary by the writers/director about how film execs are afraid 'real dinosaurs' just won't cut it for making big bucks. That all said, I am really excited for this movie, and I do not despise the concept of the I-Rex. People writing it off for one hybrid aren't really giving it a fair chance.
Before people start citing Frog DNA let's try to remember that it was a MacGuffin for sequential hermaphroditism, and that Jurassic Park strove to put mostly accurate Dinosaurs on the big screen. It was explicitly said: they aimed to make a movie about animals, not monsters. Yes, creative liberties were taken, and that's fine- but damn I would be lying to say I am not bummed that Jurassic World didn't adopt modern dinosaur science into the mix of things. There are so many experts out there ready and willing to help create a state of the art dinosaur movie, and they all seem to be saying they're weren't approached.
Now, I am fine with the featherless Raptors and T-Rex- in fact, I love it. Those are fantastic classic Jurassic Park designs. But, it's a new park populated by new Dinosaurs. Some of these new players could have sported some plumage and accurate biology.
I can't help but feel the I-Rex is a commentary by the writers/director about how film execs are afraid 'real dinosaurs' just won't cut it for making big bucks. That all said, I am really excited for this movie, and I do not despise the concept of the I-Rex. People writing it off for one hybrid aren't really giving it a fair chance.
Green Mamba
Member
That's more or less what I meant--Jurassic Park wasn't accurate down to the nitty gritty details, but it looked to modern science for more macro level things--posture and movement was an absolute paradigm shift in movies in a way that hadn't been witnessed before on such a scale. Jurassic Park was riddled with inaccuracies, of course, but they weren't necessarily born out of a desire to throttle back the science by twenty years out of fears that the public wouldn't accept them. It's not an all or nothing battle here. They don't have to be 100% accurate. But it sure would be nice to see Jurassic World pay homage to that original idea instead of playing in its two decade old sandbox.
I hate the whole "if they had feathers, they aren't scary/giant chicken" thought process. People go batshit crazy over SMALL birds with their phobias. You think they are gonna roll an eye or try and pet a giant feathered animal? There are living large birds that hit the scare factor, like the Cassowary, Bearded Vulture, Condors and Eagles. These large ass birds (Cassowary is one of the biggest, if not the biggest in mass IIRC) are apex predators, and are scary as fuck.
And people act as if 'feathers' suddenly takes away their sharp fangs and talons, girth and their mass. "Oh, it's feathered. Nothing to be scared of." Yea, good luck with that.
Gambit 1138
Banned
All they had to do was have a scene where a pack of small feathered microrapters bust out of a pen and devour a dude in a similar way the compies did in TLW and everyone would have shut up about the feathers thing.
Anton Sugar
Member
I agree with all of this. I am okay with the designs they went with, even though the nerd in me would have LOVED feathers.
I only take issue with the thought that feather dinosaurs CAN'T be scary. It just hasn't been done yet. Hence my example: prior to JP, ask anyone if they thought a velociraptor was scary and they would have no idea what you were talking about. If they did know about raptors, they would probably be scary but only in the general sense of "yeah, there were some big predators alive back then" fear.
Jurassic Park added a terrifying mystique to raptors, largely through how Spielberg handled them. There's no reason why the same couldn't happen with feathered dinos.
Plucking a bird makes it look like the dumbest thing ever so there is that too, lol.
The frog DNA is an easy challenge to overcome. They state technology has improved much, in the context of that universe. Thus having new, feathered animals is justified.
Like we both said they could easily have feathered animals and classic JP dinos. I don't mind the classic JP dinos. In fact I love the Rex. It's great that she's back and she serves as another big (no pun intended) anchor to JP1.
And I think the I-Rex is a great idea and kills several dinos in one stone. It explores the mutated dino idea that Spielberg and the producers have wanted, it brings an important part of Dr. Wu's character from the book into the movies' canon, and it solves the problem of trying to one-up the T-Rex that every dino franchise, JP included, tries to do.
The frog DNA is an easy challenge to overcome. They state technology has improved much, in the context of that universe. Thus having new, feathered animals is justified.
Like we both said they could easily have feathered animals and classic JP dinos. I don't mind the classic JP dinos. In fact I love the Rex. It's great that she's back and she serves as another big (no pun intended) anchor to JP1.
And I think the I-Rex is a great idea and kills several dinos in one stone. It explores the mutated dino idea that Spielberg and the producers have wanted, it brings an important part of Dr. Wu's character from the book into the movies' canon, and it solves the problem of trying to one-up the T-Rex that every dino franchise, JP included, tries to do.
Anton Sugar
Member
(I need to try falconry some day...)sometimes i game
Member
There are wide electric fences in place. In theory he could probably lunge forward and awkwardly flap onto the first few rows while being shocked and fall back into the water, but the angle and his jump acceleration seem like it check out. Then again whales jump out of tanks at seaworld and bulls jump into the audience at shows...monster trucks, too...so yeah, dumb is dumb, but I would believe this setup could be real.
I'm more interested in how this dinosaur knows there's food 100 ft in the air if he's just swimming around.
Cow Mengde
Banned
I don't remember when pycnofibers were discovered on Pterosaurs, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't known during JP3. Again, I could be wrong.
I the novel, they were attacked because the animals were incredibly territorial. A lot of animals attack for the same reasons.
The rest is spot on though.
I would love a film (or very well made/expensive doc) on the Pterosaurs. They are so misrepresented, it's crazy. And most of the public is only aware of the "Pterodactyl" (thanks Power Rangers, and other TV and film media). There is so much more to these animals that just that one.
The huge Quetzalcoatlus. The sexual dimorphic Hamipterus tianshanensis. The toother Guidraco venator. The Darwinopterus modulari. Or the Ikrandraco avatar (yes, named after the film). All of them are my faves. None of them looked like this;
Quetzalcoatlus
The huge Quetzalcoatlus. The sexual dimorphic Hamipterus tianshanensis. The toother Guidraco venator. The Darwinopterus modulari. Or the Ikrandraco avatar (yes, named after the film). All of them are my faves. None of them looked like this;
It was pretty widely believed that Pteranodon had hair-like fibres back then. I even had a Pteranodon toy copyright-dated from the seventies that has a filamentous-like body texture sculpt.
Cow Mengde
Banned
Really? I didn't know that. I'm not very up to date with pterosauria. I could have sworn it was recent, but I guess not.
This is why I like jp2, actually. The trex parents acted a lot like the rex in jp1, and since the movie is fairly fast pased, I can believe Sarah panicked and didn't ditch the vest. The Trex parents tried to get rid of the trailer, but it wouldn't die so they kept going back (and then killed the other weird thing trying to save it, and then found a snack)
The spinosaurs blows though. I can't even. I marathoned the trilogy this weekend and I don't even get it. He eats two guys, a trex, and still somehow still tracks grant and friends to buttfuck nowhere, completely silent and sneaky, and then busts through a fence, and forgets that doors can be broken. Why? The rex pair chased the gang in 2 for their kid, the single rex in 1 was just hunting like a boss, but the serial killer spinosaurus just likes to stalk and kill for no reason.
I could have suspended my belief if it was a group of spinosaurus making a territory play, but even then there was no suspense to him: no stomp stomp stomp as he shows up, just Kirby Paint and Tile Plus (the plus is for bathroom appliances) as it sneaks around. A phone INSIDE a dinosaur is more loud than the dinosaur that's bigger than the big stomper. What?
That said, I can't see jurassic world messing up the same way. The dinosaur HAS to be a big stalker monster, and really shouldn't have a beef with people. I really hope the crowd is running from the trex exhibit malfunctioning or something rather than one supermonster. I have the feeling that the movie is going to be about trying to hunt this thing down rather than running the whole time, and the park turning to shit should make that rough.
Anton Sugar
Member
I'm almost certain Trevorrow has stated that they wanted to not treat any of the dinosaurs as good or bad, but as wild animals.
Given the trailer's description of the I-Rex, I'm doubtful, but it's good to know his head is in the right place.
Given the trailer's description of the I-Rex, I'm doubtful, but it's good to know his head is in the right place.
The quotes chosen for the trailer were pretty bad, content and delivery-wise. I think it's hard to debate that.
The "It will kill anything that moves" sounds stupid in a literal sense (and it is), but I've seen plenty of animal/nature documentaries that say those exact same lines about crocodiles, tiger sharks, and any indiscriminate eaters; meaning it can and will attempt to eat anything you throw at it, but it doesn't mean it's gonna be attacking every moving human and waving palm tree it sees. At least that's how I see it.
More_Badass
Member
Can't you say the same thing about the JP Rex, considering its whole schtick was "It can't see us if we don't move"?
After whatever the hell happened to the Game Overthinker, I'm not going to trust MovieBob on what is cool.
Pycnofibres had been known about for decades. The first speculations about them were in the 1800s. It's funny, because fuzzy pterosaurs are even rarer in the public consciousness nowadays than feathered dinosaurs.
They seem pretty different from the trailer. Seems like the youtube version was put through some kind of auto-tone. The higher res looks fantastic next to the shit bitrate from youtube as well.
I've never been more excited about seeing a movie in IMAX 3D.
Sneaky Gato
Member
Looks like those electric fences lean out quite a bit further than I thought
and there is quite a bit of room beyond that so the design isn't as stupid as a thought it was.
Given the restricted zone I wonder if we'll get to see the difference between the trained zoo animals and the more wild dinosaurs. According to the timeline they've been free now for twenty years. And I doubt that the construction of the place was as safe as the website says it was.
(that trainer is totally going get snatched though)
Given the restricted zone I wonder if we'll get to see the difference between the trained zoo animals and the more wild dinosaurs. According to the timeline they've been free now for twenty years. And I doubt that the construction of the place was as safe as the website says it was.
Those look muuuuuuuuch better! And yeah, I plan on going to a REAL Imax for this one.
Haha really? I thought The Lost World was pretty awesome as a kid, that fucking cliff scene blew my mind. I mean I can see it's got issues now but it's miles away from The Phantom Menace.
Same. Even if it's one of Spielberg's worst films (imo), he still crafted a movie that had some life and real momentum, even moments that are inspired (cliff, tall grass). It has its hollywood schlock moments that the original didn't have, but I thought it was a enjoyable diversion.
Phantom Menace pulled yawns from me because it was a soulless, poorly green screened, and most importantly BORING film, with no personality and insulting attempts to entertain children.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
What the heck was that
Anton Sugar
Member
Yeah, for sure. Before I realized he was posting comparison pics from the same trailer, I thought he was doing his own recolors, haha.
Those are my thoughts as well on both movies.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Yeah, the iTunes HD Download looks way better than the Youtube one.
What's interesting is the TLW one was going to be covered by Microfibers when it played a larger role:
The final CG model didn't sport them, but it looks better than the JP3 monstrosities. Actually, it's hands down my favorite representation.
- Status