-
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.
No feathers in Jurassic Park 4 sparks debate and protest
- Thread starter Demoncarnotaur
- Start date
- Status
plagiarize
Banned
Nope.
Shrink wrapped un-naturalistic JP theropods look as goofy and outdated as this
to me.
I would totally go see a movie about those.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
I've posted this before, but I have always wanted to see these guys replace the Compsognathus- The Microraptor:
With a little artistic freedom they could basically become a flock of miniature flying velociraptors... what have 4 wings. Natures X-Wing, with teeth and claws. It would be pretty damn awesome to see IMO.
+
Yup, it's a fantastic and striking interpretation. I think the biggest issue, is when people say feathers they imagine the normal sickly looking bird/dino that early feathered art portrayed. I would have to see more imaginative looks, like that one. It provide such a cool contrast against the unfeathered Raptors, and I think it would really capture the audiences imagination.
This is the type of feathered art that I love, and I would have died to see JPs take on it. The best part is these could reside side by side with the non feathered dinosaurs providing a great contrast and balance.
With a little artistic freedom they could basically become a flock of miniature flying velociraptors... what have 4 wings. Natures X-Wing, with teeth and claws. It would be pretty damn awesome to see IMO.
+
Yup, it's a fantastic and striking interpretation. I think the biggest issue, is when people say feathers they imagine the normal sickly looking bird/dino that early feathered art portrayed. I would have to see more imaginative looks, like that one. It provide such a cool contrast against the unfeathered Raptors, and I think it would really capture the audiences imagination.
As I've voiced before in the official thread I'm not too impressed with what I saw, and I'm still pretty upset with the "No feathers" decision.
I mean, just imagine what a group of talented 3D molders and film makers could do with material like this
It would have been so fresh to see theropods that looked like this in Jurassic World's trailer; this was the perfect opportunity to rejuvenate the brand from an aesthetic/thematic point of view while also passively educating the public and honoring the principles behind JP1 in the process.
This is the type of feathered art that I love, and I would have died to see JPs take on it. The best part is these could reside side by side with the non feathered dinosaurs providing a great contrast and balance.
I'm not opposed to the idea of feathered dinosaurs because our understanding of them changes over time. I fall on the side of science when it comes to this but I understand that Jurassic World takes artistic license with that sort of thing for nostalgia and continuities sake.
Scalie dinosaurs in a movie is just artistic merit, Scalie dinosaurs in science books being written currently is a no-no based on our updated knowledge.
No one in this thread loves JP more than me but there comes a point where you need to realize that art isn't obligated to imitate science.
Scalie dinosaurs in a movie is just artistic merit, Scalie dinosaurs in science books being written currently is a no-no based on our updated knowledge.
No one in this thread loves JP more than me but there comes a point where you need to realize that art isn't obligated to imitate science.
The best part of this thread is all the gorgeous feathered dinosaur artwork.
Twice!Yeah I honestly don't get the idea that putting feathers on a dino = automatically terrible. If anything it just makes them majestic and terrifying.
I mean, Pokemon already followed suit!
Everybody with the 'it's just a movie defense'...yeah, but some people may like it to do more than that. I don't see why that's hard to empathize with. And it seems a bit like that 'free speech means you can't criticize what I'm doing' nonsense that drives me crazy. The filmmakers are entitled to the choice they made, but I personally think it is bad one, one that is also pretty retrograde and ALSO also not keeping with the spirit of the first movie--you know, moving away from the weird lumbering upright T-rexes and such. There were liberties taken to make a good story, but there was a bit of extra value there that helped advance the layperson's scientific value.
Getting back to it being an artistic choice, that choice is so frustratingly safe and seems more than anything else like the filmmakers saying 'Fuck if I know how to make my own thing.' Instead it's trading on iconography previously established, which again is an artistic choice but one of such conservatism that it just isn't doing anything. They could introduce so many awesome color palettes, new scenarios of tiny fliers, an unnerving disconnect between something almost looking cute and then being deadly-as-shit but nope! Bank on nostalgia.
It's disappointing is what I'm saying.
Getting back to it being an artistic choice, that choice is so frustratingly safe and seems more than anything else like the filmmakers saying 'Fuck if I know how to make my own thing.' Instead it's trading on iconography previously established, which again is an artistic choice but one of such conservatism that it just isn't doing anything. They could introduce so many awesome color palettes, new scenarios of tiny fliers, an unnerving disconnect between something almost looking cute and then being deadly-as-shit but nope! Bank on nostalgia.
It's disappointing is what I'm saying.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Also, for people who say bright, colorful and feathered DInosaurs wouldn't appeal or sell.. I counter with this:
Now, again, I'm not calling for all Dinosaurs in JW to have feathers. Just some new species to provide contrast against the classic designs.
Now, again, I'm not calling for all Dinosaurs in JW to have feathers. Just some new species to provide contrast against the classic designs.
That sounds intensely corny.
Plumage doesn't strike fear.
Edit: the double winged whatevers in Avatar are just as bad.
Delta Assault
Member
Also, for people who say bright, colorful and feathered DInosaurs wouldn't appeal or sell.. I counter with this:
Now, again, I'm not calling for all Dinosaurs in JW to have feathers. Just some new species to provide contrast against the classic designs.
But uh... those aren't feathered at all...
bengraven
Member
You know, I'm a huge dinosaur fan. Maybe not nearly as big as when I was a kid. When I was a kid, it was dinosaurs everything. Transformers and TMNT and GI Joe were awesome, but if they added dinosaurs to their lineups, they would have taken the top spot.
I literally consider the day I quit playing toys and becoming a young man to be the weekend I told a friend I didn't want to play LEGO, but instead was going to read the newly released book Jurassic Park.
So maybe my opinion counts as a fan. Of the creatures and the science behind them.
And my theory is this: I don't give a shit.
Dinosaurs had feathers. We don't know what they looked like - they could have been boring like typical brown North American animals or beautiful and colorful like a bird of paradise. But for decades we didn't know this and I think the average idiot doesn't even know that dinosaurs were supposed to be feathered - he just wants to watch monsters rip apart people so he doesn't have to think about his shitty job and the things he remembered as a child were green and scaly.
So either way, who gives a shit?
I literally consider the day I quit playing toys and becoming a young man to be the weekend I told a friend I didn't want to play LEGO, but instead was going to read the newly released book Jurassic Park.
So maybe my opinion counts as a fan. Of the creatures and the science behind them.
And my theory is this: I don't give a shit.
Dinosaurs had feathers. We don't know what they looked like - they could have been boring like typical brown North American animals or beautiful and colorful like a bird of paradise. But for decades we didn't know this and I think the average idiot doesn't even know that dinosaurs were supposed to be feathered - he just wants to watch monsters rip apart people so he doesn't have to think about his shitty job and the things he remembered as a child were green and scaly.
So either way, who gives a shit?
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply they were. Just that their designs are very...colorful. And they share design cues that people say wouldn't have appeal.
Cameron actually kinda criticised Spielberg for having only dull colored dinosaurs with regards to his own Pandoran fauna.
What was really exciting about Jurassic park was that at the time it was the feeling of this is what dinosaurs actually look like! Finally REAL dinosaurs.I guess some of that is gone with the purposfull distancing from what scientists currently know.
I also don't think the cg would be as convincing with feathers. It usually looks too smooth and soft and not actually there.
I also don't think the cg would be as convincing with feathers. It usually looks too smooth and soft and not actually there.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
It's funny- I personally tread a middle ground in my own opinions and wishes. I have nothing against the colors on the Jurassic Park designs, in fact I believe it helps them appear and feel more real. That said, I think there is room for vibrancy, which we have seen with the Dilophosaurus, and we may actually see with some of the new Raptors. But, I would like to see more...extreme/modern designs as well. I would be happy with earthy color pallets on some feathered species, as long as the plumage itself was creative and inspired.
It's definitely disappointing because it caters to a stupidly nostalgic generation that grew up with Scalie designs. It's disapointing but not worthy of becoming the topic of another pointless Internet controversy.
starchild excalibur
Member
I definitely get artistic license and at the end of the day it's up to the director (and probably to an even larger extent, the studio) how they want to depict dinosaurs.
That being said, it's a little bit sad to see that a film that's never shied away from trying to depict actual science now kowtowing to what we're used to seeing when it comes to depictions of dinosaurs. This isn't Transformers or Godzilla, but a series that's about scientists recreating beings that actually used to exist. You could do amazing things with feathers on dinosaurs. If you're afraid that feathers would diminish the thrill, excitement or fear that dinosaurs instill then perhaps you just need to be more skilled at directing.
That being said, it's a little bit sad to see that a film that's never shied away from trying to depict actual science now kowtowing to what we're used to seeing when it comes to depictions of dinosaurs. This isn't Transformers or Godzilla, but a series that's about scientists recreating beings that actually used to exist. You could do amazing things with feathers on dinosaurs. If you're afraid that feathers would diminish the thrill, excitement or fear that dinosaurs instill then perhaps you just need to be more skilled at directing.
Well yeah, in terms of denying science it's not of the same importance as, like, climate change. The 'who gives a shit' responses are really frustrating in the way they aren't even engaging with what I think are real reasons to be annoyed/disappointed. I mean, one of the most talked-about movies of the year strove for scientific accuracy, and just introducing some small measure of that into the movie hurts no one, but people are just turning around and acting like 'lol blockbuster' for a franchise that previously aspired for more. Cynicism has its appeal--you don't look silly ranting a bit over something ultimately minor like this--but it shouldn't be an excuse just to say 'lol who cares.'
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Just remember, feathers can't be scary.
Not at all.
Not at all.
Nikodemos
Member
I'm bummed out that they didn't go entirely scientifically accurate. You know, the part where mosquitos trapped in amber containing dino-DNA getting fossilized, preserving the DNA for millions of years, and how that could never actually have happened? I mean, if your pushing for science, don't get picky.
Don't mean to shit on you guys and your feather dinosaur pics, but it's not the feathers that make them look menacing. One could argue that they do look less menacing, in fact. It's the action that's defining those pictures more than anything, imo. A killer teddy bear would be scary if you saw it rip a man apart. I do like the diversity feathers/protofeathers give them, though.
darkazcura
Member
That is the point. No one is saying the feathers make them more scary, just that feathers do not make them cute and cuddly which a lot of people have essentially said.
Anyway I have low expectations for JW ever since they announced no feathers. It goes completely against one of the original intents of JP and that was to not only make a thrilling movie but to show people what dinosaurs were actually like based on scientific knowledge at the time. Throwing that intent out the window with JW completely killed my expectations for the movie. It showed how the director would rather make a crazy blockbuster than a movie with real depth. That's how I felt anyway. Hopefully I am wrong, and it turns out decent.
Ah, I see. Makes no real difference to me either way. Feathers would allow for a bit more vibrance, but this is a decision they've already made.
Does it? I thought it was already well established that the original Jurassic Park was never intended to be scientifically accurate when they chose a completely different species to represent Velociraptors. They knew it wasn't a raptor, but they liked the name and still wanted a bigger, nasty monster. Got all sorts of flak for going with a "fake" raptor, but they still established that the movie never intended to be 100% accurate.
It was always intended to be a science fiction movie. Not a science movie.
I think that's why I am disappointed, one of the draws of the first movie was it's attempt to be accurate in the depiction of the dinosaurs, velociraptors aside.
It is useful to differentiate between the intention of the park and the the intention of the movie I think. The park was always happy with whatever the fuck popped out as long as it looked cool, but the draw of the movie for me was the realistic depiction of the dinosaurs. I think the makers were pretty keen on accuracy for the most part, aside from the raptors as I said.
akachan ningen
Member
Talk about delusional
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Delusional? What the fuck are you talking about? If you're gonna make that statement at least back it up.
You know, because pop culture never has an effect on mainstream knowledge, Jurassic Park least of all.
Oh.
I'm not saying Jurassic World adding feathers would suddenly make every museum solve its funding issues, but if you think it wouldn't have a positive impact then I think that's the delusional statement.
Idk on the one hand fuck feathers but on the other a major part of the 1st movie was all about how they where not reptilian at all and were more bird like in behavior.
I think they should have a scene where someone goes "why don't they have feathers?" And they go oh focus groups liked the lizard looking ones more so we went with that. Then show some eggs hatching with feathered dinos, you know life finds a way. Fade to black everyone is happy.
I think they should have a scene where someone goes "why don't they have feathers?" And they go oh focus groups liked the lizard looking ones more so we went with that. Then show some eggs hatching with feathered dinos, you know life finds a way. Fade to black everyone is happy.
All the complaining about the raptors in JP1 and how they "got it wrong" really doesn't make any sense when they were never attempting to get it right. They did exactly what they intended when they chose a different animal to be the raptor.
Fair enough to complain when Discovery Channel makes a documentary and it isn't scientifically accurate. But a science fiction movie intended for entertainment only doesn't deserve the same criticism. Sure they're trying to make the dinosaurs look real in the same way they try to make King Kong look real, but there was never any promises of scientific accuracy. Jurassic Park isn't a documentary. Never was, never intended to be.
Fair enough to complain when Discovery Channel makes a documentary and it isn't scientifically accurate. But a science fiction movie intended for entertainment only doesn't deserve the same criticism. Sure they're trying to make the dinosaurs look real in the same way they try to make King Kong look real, but there was never any promises of scientific accuracy. Jurassic Park isn't a documentary. Never was, never intended to be.
Personally, I think John Conway's Tyrannosaurus rex looks way more frightening with feathers than it would naked.
MisterGrey3000
Member
That's an amazing piece, but I don't think looking scary should matter at all.
I've said this before, but me and a lot of other people find adult African Lions to be quite cute; many of their mannerisms are house cat-esque, and on top of that they're strikingly beautiful animals.
The males have gorgeous flowing mains and pretty golden coats, they're absolutely fabulous...but if you put me in an untamed African savanna with a pride of Lions on my tail, I'd faint at the sight of one those things creeping towards me.
Delusional my synapsid therapsid mammalian ass; Films/television/animation/etc are very effective at delivering new information to people, and motivating them to learn about said information.
The entertainment arts are a powerful force in our modern society.
It's very unlikely that any paleontologist, paleoartist, museum, or paleobuff could have changed the way people saw Dinosaurs like Jurassic Park did in the early 90s; the cultural shift it created was nothing short of mind blowing.
I've said this before, but me and a lot of other people find adult African Lions to be quite cute; many of their mannerisms are house cat-esque, and on top of that they're strikingly beautiful animals.
The males have gorgeous flowing mains and pretty golden coats, they're absolutely fabulous...but if you put me in an untamed African savanna with a pride of Lions on my tail, I'd faint at the sight of one those things creeping towards me.
Delusional my synapsid therapsid mammalian ass; Films/television/animation/etc are very effective at delivering new information to people, and motivating them to learn about said information.
The entertainment arts are a powerful force in our modern society.
It's very unlikely that any paleontologist, paleoartist, museum, or paleobuff could have changed the way people saw Dinosaurs like Jurassic Park did in the early 90s; the cultural shift it created was nothing short of mind blowing.
Vicetrailia
Member
Jurassic Park was significant for pop culture. It revitalized interests and got new people interested in dinosaurs. So in addition to selling toys, it certainly helped out museums and the entire network actually (to be general about it).
I don't buy any arguments about feathers being less scary, because it is more about how dinosaurs carry themselves and how dangerous they can be.
Ok what about birds with lizard like tails?Yes, the Hoatzin is a living bird with hand claws.
neogaffer1
Banned
Adding feathers to the dinos would make them CG feathers which age more quickly and look worse than just scales.
I thought scientists and paleontologists were changing their minds on this? (yet again).
I saw a piece on the news a while ago saying they had found a fossilized lake bed in Asia or somewhere that had actual body imprints from various dead dino's, including T-Rex, that showed scaly skin but no evidence of feathers.
They were saying something about revising their theory to only smaller dino's that lived right at the end 65mil years ago had some feathers. They also said about raptors and T-Rex would only of had feathers on the top of their heads if at all.
I need to Google this to see if i can find anything on it.
I saw a piece on the news a while ago saying they had found a fossilized lake bed in Asia or somewhere that had actual body imprints from various dead dino's, including T-Rex, that showed scaly skin but no evidence of feathers.
They were saying something about revising their theory to only smaller dino's that lived right at the end 65mil years ago had some feathers. They also said about raptors and T-Rex would only of had feathers on the top of their heads if at all.
I need to Google this to see if i can find anything on it.
darkazcura
Member
To me taking a liberty like making the raptor larger than it was supposed to be is okay because the creators of the film were relatively accurate in most other areas. Completely skipping out on feathers on every single dinosaur is much different and worse. One of the big things with JP was it being a coming out party for dinosaurs not being these large lumbering slow creatures, which is the way millions of people thought of them previous to JP. Now JW had the chance to show people how much has changed with scientific discovery like JP did but instead they are throwing it out the window to maintain some weird sense of thrill that comes with scales. I just don't like it. I would have been alright with a compromise where only some had feathers but to not have them at all? Meh.
I also never understood the thought process behind the raptor argument as proof that JP was never trying to be scientifically accurate so we should be okay with no feathers. That is an example of one dinosaur out of the dozens that they did correctly. There is a huge difference between purposely getting one dinosaur wrong (JP) and getting them all wrong (JW). Most people who want feathers are not looking for the creators of the movie to throw them on every dinosaur, but to not have them at all? That is the problem.
akachan ningen
Member
I'm talking about the last part. Putting feathers in jp won't start a new Dino renaissance, it'll just make people think "why the fuck do they have feathers" and then maybe they go to YouTube to find out why.
I would prefer that they be accurate but I don't think it will be a good movie either way.
It's kinda hard to change your mind on this when there are actual fossils with feather impressions.
Velociraptor definitely had feathers. There are quill knobs on its forelimbs which would function as feather attachments like in modern-day birds. Of course, Velociraptor was a smaller dinosaur and it didn't live up to the KT boundary, but you get the point.
Cow Mengde
Banned
No paleontologist changed their minds. Ever year, more and more dinosaurs have been discovered with feathers. Every clade in coelurosauria now has examples of dinosaur with feathers. Coelurosauria is the direct ancestors to birds. This group includes Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, and Gallimimus. Dinosaurs like Allosaurus aren't part of this group though. A separate group further away from bird was also discovered with feathers this year. Now it's believe the ancestors of dinosaurs may have had fuzz or feathers.
Also, just because skin impression doesn't show feathers doesn't mean it doesn't have feathers. Fossils are rock, and you need very fine grain to preserve fossils with feathers.
Jawmuncher
Member
Well they have no problem finding fossils of plants and leaves which are pretty much the same thing.
Besides this wasn't me saying it, it was the guys on the news.
It seems to me that some dino's maybe started getting feathers as they started evolving into what would eventually become birds but its obvious that dino's didn't have feathers from the start. Everything on land evolved from creatures that came out from the sea and they obviously wouldn't of had feathers so.
lastplayed
Member
Birds, lizards and dinosaurs are all completely different things though.
Green Mamba
Member
Dinosaurs are pretty far removed, evolution wise, from the fish that crawled from the sea. It's like saying "well mammals didn't start out with hair because everything evolved from creatures that came from the sea." It's a non-sequitor.
And I really wouldn't use news as a source for science.
But that was my point, the feathers had to evolve.
darkazcura
Member
His point is that dinos are so far removed from the creatures that came from the ocean that by the time dinosaurs came to be, they may have (likely) had feathers from the start or close to it. At the very least a lot of the dinosaurs being depicted in JW probably always had them. Obviously that is still up in the air but yeah..
MisterGrey3000
Member
AFAIK, there are no modern birds with long stiff boney tails alive today; it is incredibly common for flying animal orders (like Pterosaurs and Bats) to lose their longer primitive balancing tails in favor of more heavier set front ends.
Edit: Also as someone else said, Lizards/squamata are very different from archosaurs like dinosaurs/birds. They are only superficially similar animals that share a much more recent common ancestor with each other than they do with synapsids/mammals and amphibians.
I'm really, really hoping that we find a well-preserved large shaggy ornithischian one of these days.
I wanna see some "woolly" ceratopsians.
There were feathered dinosaurs 160 million years ago at least. Feathers evolved long before Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor existed.
- Status