Green Mamba
Member
And it's entirely possible they evolved before dinosaurs proper did.
Nevermind that there are dinosaurs in Jurassic Park that definitely had feathers in life, so this is a moot point.
-
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
Nevermind that there are dinosaurs in Jurassic Park that definitely had feathers in life, so this is a moot point.
lastplayed
Member
MisterGrey3000
Member
PSY・S;142121296 said:
This is probably how the Octo-sapians are going to depict humanity in the future.
bengraven
Member
You know a genre I'd like to see (and apparently a new writer has a George R. R. Martin approved book coming out next year that will hopefully "start" this genre) and that's dinosaur fantasy novels.
Imagine those beautiful feathered dinosaurs in a swords and sorcery novel. Or better yet, adaptation of that novel.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
I find it weird that Japan enjoys updating their stuff to current trends whereas Western stuff don't.
Eh that's more with lack of imagination. We have feathered fiends existing in real life.
Eh that's more with lack of imagination. We have feathered fiends existing in real life.
MisterGrey3000
Member
*looks at avatar*
I wonder how mad some people on gaming-side would get if EAD redesigned Yoshi with feathers.
thesuperfunk
Member
Have you not seen the tyrannosaurus chicken?
Some dinosaur fossils have feather impressions. Based on the diversity of fossils with feathers, they were widespread among coelurosaur dinosaurs, the clade that includes today's birds. Several of the dinosaurs in Jurassic World (Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Galimimus) are coelurosaurs that likely or definitely had feathers in real life.
You might want to make a lame joke but to be honest just look at a lizard, a chicken and at a T-Rex: The anatomy of a chicken has so many parallels with the T-Rex it's not even funny. And both barely resemble a lizard.
Nikodemos
Member
Furthermore, in some cases even the hue was preserved (it has something to do with volcanic-sourced silt being finer compared to the regular alluvionary one). For instance, analysis has pointed towards Microraptor having black feathers with a gunmetal blue sheen, sort of like the inner feathers of a magpie. Unfortunately, lighter-coloured pigments aren't preserved as well as darker ones, so much information is currently unavailable on colours such as yellow or red.
Anton Sugar
Member
Over two decades, the Jurassic Park dinosaur conversation has morphed from "wow, this is the most accurate depiction of dinosaurs we've ever seen" to "these are my FICTIONAL childhood dinosaurs plz don't change them".
I like this concept art of a feathered T-Rex.
Its definitely a huge step backwards.
Its definitely a huge step backwards.
Wouldn't bother me at all. But not all dinos had feathers. Alot of them did, though.*looks at avatar*
I wonder how mad some people on gaming-side would get if EAD redesigned Yoshi with feathers.
MisterGrey3000
Member
I like this concept art of a feathered T-Rex.
I like how this piece manages to have messy feathers/proto-feathers that don't look ratty or ridiculously un-naturalistic.
Adding feathers to the Jurassic Park dinosaurs would go against the theme of the book and film. The dinosaurs of Jurassic Park aren't real dinosaurs, they're frankenstein constructions based on what the scientists who created them in the lab assumed dinosaurs were. It makes sense they wouldn't have feathers because at the time scientists didn't think they had feathers.
There's a long section of the book where Wu discusses how he could "improve" the dinosaurs in the next version. Based on the trailer it sounds possible that Jurassic World is going to explore this aspect of the book further.
There's a long section of the book where Wu discusses how he could "improve" the dinosaurs in the next version. Based on the trailer it sounds possible that Jurassic World is going to explore this aspect of the book further.
The discussion on feathers made me think, there aren't going to be any Therizinosaurids in Jurassic World, are there?
The Jurassic World park opened in 2005, so that doesn't quite fly (heh).
That's not at all a theme of the film, in fact the theme is that these are real animals who will behave as nature meant them to, not humans. And central to the film's fascination was the scientific wonder, the two scientists who suddenly stood face to face with real dinosaurs and learned about their behaviour from them. This suggestion of a scientifically realistic approach to the depiction made the simple adventure film many times more fascinating, to kids as well as adults.
Feathers alone don't matter that much in isolation - it won't decide whether the film is good or not at all - but what they chose to do with this particular aspect does tell us a lot about how they approached the movie as a whole: If they're "just" movie monsters then the film will "just" be a monster movie, and the sense of wonder and the unique qualities of the original is most likely lost.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Watch the making of Jurassic Park (the movie) and get back to me on whether or not accurate dinosaurs go against the theme.
It's a fucking movie about Dinosaurs, what's wrong for wanting...Dinosaurs?
I never understood the argument that Jurassic World dinosaurs should have feathers because pop culture can effect perception of history and fact. Why? Why should creativity (subjective wether you think featherless dinosaurs is creative or not) be hampered by real history? Why should a movie sacrifice its vision to educate the masses?
If people don't know that dinosaurs had feathers? That's their problem. It's their ignorance. The onus is 100% on them to go do their research or seek to be correctly taught. It's like the equivalent of saying, "yeah, Thor shouldn't be in the Avengers because Thor doesn't look like he does in paintings." Who cares? It's a movie. If you can't let minor creative liberties go I don't know how you can ever enjoy movies in general anyway, but that's another argument.
Movies are entertainment. Plain and simple. Can they be educational? Absolutely, but that's at the behest of the creators to make it so. If they want to make a film without feathered dinosaurs because that's their vision? Let them. Not every film needs to be a historically accurate piece. Could they have made scary feathered dinosaurs? Sure they could have. But that's not what they wanted to do and there's no reason for them to have to do so on that idea alone.
If people don't know that dinosaurs had feathers? That's their problem. It's their ignorance. The onus is 100% on them to go do their research or seek to be correctly taught. It's like the equivalent of saying, "yeah, Thor shouldn't be in the Avengers because Thor doesn't look like he does in paintings." Who cares? It's a movie. If you can't let minor creative liberties go I don't know how you can ever enjoy movies in general anyway, but that's another argument.
Movies are entertainment. Plain and simple. Can they be educational? Absolutely, but that's at the behest of the creators to make it so. If they want to make a film without feathered dinosaurs because that's their vision? Let them. Not every film needs to be a historically accurate piece. Could they have made scary feathered dinosaurs? Sure they could have. But that's not what they wanted to do and there's no reason for them to have to do so on that idea alone.
Antiwhippy
the holder of the trombone
*looks at avatar*
I wonder how mad some people on gaming-side would get if EAD redesigned Yoshi with feathers.
Nintendo already got on with the times and introduced a dinosaur with feathers.
If a fucking Pokemon can take cues from scientific discoveries then why not Hollywood?
Also disproves that a dinosaur with feathers can't be badass.
darkazcura
Member
This is not subjective. I'm sorry there is no good creative reason for having no feathers. Continuity is a lame cop-out and any interview with the creators talking about featherless dinosaurs has come across as people who don't give a crap about reality whatsoever and one of the original intentions of JP. I'd be alright if they kept some classic designs for the most popular dinosaurs in the movie, but ignoring feathers completely is really lame. That's the problem and no arguments about creative liberties and what not will change that opinion of mine. Keep feathers off the T-Rex and raptors if you really want to but have a few feathered dinosaurs. Really shouldn't be a big deal to satisfy both types of audiences.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Pop cultures effect on mainstream knowledge isn't the argument for feathers, just an unfortunate side effect that is worth discussing. The biggest argument for feathers has been covered in this thread over and over again: it's a Dinosaur movie, so why shouldn't it have Dinosaurs? Further, purposely omitting feathers completely goes against the theme and intention of Jurassic Parks Dinosaurs, which were meant to revolutionize Dinosaurs in cinema, taking huge steps to stay close to science. Jurassic Park was never meant to be a monster movie, it was meant to be a movie about prehistoric animals.
Again, this has been said over and over again including my OP, but most people are fine with inaccuracies- it's the fact that no effort is being put into modernizing any of the Dinosaurs that is so incredibly frustrating.
Further, you argue for creativity? I say that being the first mainstream film to bring feathered dinosaurs to life, giving them their own unique JP-style would be true definition of creativity and risk taking.
You are missing the point, and what the original film did and was in 1993. It's not about "educating the masses". When the film first came out, it was at the time one of the most accurate depictions of Dinos on film. And that was one of the major contributing factors that made the film so good. That tradition seems to have been lost on this film's director. Even the third film put quills on their raptors.
And also, what big Hollywood film worth a damn would feature accurate dinos as the main antagonist other than Jurassic Park? I'll wait.
I like this concept art of a feathered T-Rex.
t-rex was a scavenger tho, not a predator
if anything with feathers he is like a giant vulture
pretty beta IMO
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Actually, that isn't true. Tyrannosaurus hunted prey, and like most carnivorous animals, it probably wouldn't pass a good opportunity to scavenge as well.
I thought the T-Rex was both like most modern day large predators.
Edit; Also isn't there evidence now to indicate that they were pack hunters.
Oh really? It's not subjective then? You sure changed my mind.
So, you're saying that because the first movie in a series of movies did something that all following films must follow suit? Sorry, I'm just not buying the argument that because Jurassic Park did it that this movie must as well. Hell, I'd argue that featherless dinosaurs fits Jurassic World's plot better; as it's about a theme park giving the masses what they want to see to keep them entertained. Not educate them. It's a flashy amusement park, not a museum.
I've read several of your posts, frequently in several Jurassic World and Halo threads. I know you're tired of arguing this point but that doesn't make a counterpoint any less valid.
Nikodemos
Member
Sadly, no.The discussion on feathers made me think, there aren't going to be any Therizinosaurids in Jurassic World, are there?
false
due to his unique design he never hunted because it was too risky to really chase. if he were to fall down he wouldn't be able to get up due to his shitty little arms and heavy design.
Foxy Fox 39
Banned
"More like a six foot turkey"
Well its from this that I drew the pack hunter notion, whether true or false, large predators are opprotunitic since finding a dead carcass or stealing a kill from a smaller predator is preferable than exerting precious energy anf injuring yourself in the hunt. However, the tools are there fpr them to do just that if required.
The idea that Tyrannosaurus was an obligate scavenger makes no sense. The only pure tetrapod scavengers today are the different kinds of vultures, and they have the advantage of flight to find carrion over large distances.
Yes, it was a big heavy animal with small forelimbs. So many other large theropods, yet few are trying to claim those were all pure scavengers.
Tyrannosaurus probably would eat carrion at any chance it got like many modern predators, but I can't imagine an animal like that only being a scavenger.
Anton Sugar
Member
If this really was a "theme" in the original movie, why not create dinosaurs as tail-dragging lizards? Why even mention the rather big plot point that dinosaurs have more in common with birds than reptiles?
I'm not sure if either of you remember, but prior to Jurassic Park, the T-Rex and pretty much all other dinosaurs dragged their tail. JP was one of the first, if not the first, mainstream portrayals of accurate dinosaur behavior and design.
Why define creativity as adherence to the norm? Why is creativity "sticking to our current standards because its what the people want"? Feathered dinos in JP would offer far more creative opportunities.
Isn't this an argument that works just as well in favor of feathered dinos? "Just because the first movie in a series of movies had featherless dinosaurs, all following films must follow suit"?
it was just a joke making fun of the dudes admitted nativity regarding dinos. no need to get sensitive.
Your argument sounds straight out of the 90's.
Michael Crichton was always made sure to play up the scientific aspects in his stories, I'd like to think he'd prefer the feathered versions.
I like this concept art of a feathered T-Rex.
See, that's pretty great looking. There's no reason they couldn't make a feathered remix and have it play.
I may be misremembering, but I recall Spielberg et al making a big deal about the T-Rex being low to the ground and fast, and being determined to debunk the "King Kong" image of the dinosaurs.
Defending territory? Deer can be mad aggressive at times.
Oh snap!
A this point in time having a movie about dinosaurs without feathers is like mounting a medieval epic with wooden harnesses/cranes on the battlefield so as to help knights get on top of their horses.
It's archaic, it's wrong and a sophisticated audience will just think it's rather ignorant. But, they'll also still think it's a fun, mindless action flick.
It's archaic, it's wrong and a sophisticated audience will just think it's rather ignorant. But, they'll also still think it's a fun, mindless action flick.
User 73706
Banned
Yeah, this one is terrifying. It looks like a gorilla the size of a bus that eats people. I mean, personally, I feel like a lot of T-Rex art makes them out to be caricatures as mindless monsters roaming the Jurassic, while I feel like this particular piece gives it more of an innocence or mindless curiosity that a lot of wild animals possess, rather than it just running around like a giant landshark.
So you're saying that objectively, there can only be more creativity with feathered dinosaurs? Because I simply don't believe that to be true and I don't think I'm the only one who does either. I'm also not saying that "sticking to the norm" is the only way to do creativity, as I think there's a great opportunity for creativity in both. Why only define creativity as rebelling from what was done?
The argument lends itself to either side of the complaint. Ultimately I side with the director in that I can forgive historical inaccuracy to be entertained. And yes, I acknowledge feathered dinosaurs can be both entertaining and scary; I will make the concession, however, that I like the look of featherless dinosaurs better. Nonetheless, I have yet to hear a compelling argument that didn't consist of "that's what dinosaurs actually looked like" or "but the other movies did it." Which, ultimately, I feel have no weight when we're discussing a form of entertainment and not an educational piece.
Lies and slander.
subzero9285 said:
Not much to be perfectly honest, and most other paleontologists would likely tell you the same.
Jack Horner has largely been responsible for popularizing the obligate scavenger hypothesis in recent years, but even he admits that much of it is simply to be contrary and get people to look at the available evidence and not assume T. rex was an arch predator simply because it looks so scary and formidable.
If you actually look at his arguments, most of them don't really hold up. I'll only go through a few in an attempt to keep this brief:
-- Horner believes that T. rex teeth are too long to resist the forces associated with prey capture. However, biomechanical analyses done to estimate the force needed to generate the puncture marks seen in dinosaur bones attributed to T. rex teeth indicate that it had a maximum bite force in the region of 15,000 to almost 40,000 lbs, depending on the study. T. rex teeth are almost circular in cross-section, and specialized to withstand torsional forces.
-- He also maintains that the hind limb anatomy of tyrannosaurs, particularly the ratio of the tibia to femur indicates that it was a slow walker. I find this point amusing because the same evidence used to suggest T. rex was a slowpoke shows that the herbivorous dinosaurs it was going after were even slower! Furthermore, relative to femur length, the tibia and other lower limb elements in T. rex are more elongated than in other giant theropods. No other animal as big as tyrannosaurs would have been any faster.
-- Horner claims that T. rex had "beady little eyes", (his words, not mine), and that it must have lacked the visual acuity of smaller theropods. This is refuted by studies that show that as overall mass increases, eye size does not scale correspondingly to skull length. T. rex eyes are no smaller than would be expected in an animal its size. Horner also conveniently forgets to note the forward-facing eye sockets and binocular vision that's been hypothesized in T. rex. Most other theropods lack these adaptations may not have had the depth perception enjoyed by T. rex.
Most convincingly of all, though, are hadrosaur and ceratopsian fossils preserving trauma from failed predation attempts by T. rex that later healed-- one specimen documents a T. rex biting off one of the brow horns of an adult Triceratops! There's also hadrosaur fossils with unhealed bite punctures to the head and neck, indicating that those individuals weren't quite as fortunate.
I could go on and on, but this post is dangerously long already. Besides, Thomas Holtz had a paper out last year that point-by-point devastates that scavenger hypothesis with hard, quantifiable data. Nobody believes that T. rex didn't scavenge on occasion, like any carnivore, but the weight of the evidence certainly doesn't support Horner's claims that it was restricted to that lifestyle.
Sorry if the reply ended up being more of a thesis, but this is stuff I tend to take rather seriously!
This is the Thomas Holtz paper
T. rex is the king, and don't you forget it!
Exactly.
- Status