well i do enjoy it when people say they want to be willingfully ignorant.
-
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
Bullshit. It was written before scientists discovered dinosaurs had feathers. If it was known before the author would obviously have incorporated it.
At least Carnotaurus was definitely featherless - they found impressions of bumps on its skin.
Dawwww, look at the cute cat ears.
Looks like a dinosaur drag queen.I think it's still threatening as ever. Come on, you all knew something was missing when it was featherless.
I would be happy even if they went this route:
Not really accurate, but badass and a step forward.
Yeah this one looks nice
Byakuya769
Member
Haha. The films have little respect for the original book.
Monocle
Member
Well let's weigh the two sides. On one hand you have #teamfeathers, who think that in addition to being awesome, feathered dinos in JP4 could give a real boost to science education, possibly shifting the tide of public opinion enough to increase science funding, improve school curricula, and make evolution more palatable to people on the fence.
On the other hand you have #teamnaked, who say "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah! Scales are just so much cooler than feathers! Suck it science, leave my dinosaurs alone!"
Hmm.
EmCeeGramr
Member
It was way more accurate than previous dinosaur films.
Dilophosaurus's frill and poison were called out in the book as having no fossil evidence in our times, but something that couldn't have been figured out from fossilized bones that old.
Velociraptor was large because Crichton was going by a short-lived current theory by an actual paleontologist that Velociraptor and Deinonychus (which is that large) were the same species (hence why Grant is digging up a Deinonychus-sized Velociraptor in North America where Deinonychus specimens are found).
Crichton dropped vision-based movement in the second book and called out why it was ridiculous (and it was called out in the third movie) and only added it in the first because it's an aspect of some reptiles and because he thought it would be neat.
None of these directly contradicted current knowledge as Crichton knew it.
Do you not understand the difference between a bird and a mammal? Do you not know what a feather is?
Crichton is a medical doctor, not a scientist, and it shows more the further he strays from medicine in his books. Timeline's science, for instance, was crap, and State of Fear was far worse.
pants
Member
Your complaints are irrelevant in a fictional world.
I did not mean to anger the furries, please dont hurt me
I wish I was a mediocre director
IISANDERII
Member
Oh you're a real hero, aren't you?
Because JP1 dinos were universally fucking cool.
I don't know mayne, if one day T-Rex was discovered to have squawked like a parrot with hard, scientific evidence backing it then I'd rather it stick to Hollywood's unrealistic rendition of it sounding like a muthafocking freight train mixed with a lion-bear for entertainment's sake. Im sure feathers could work without looking silly on some dinosaurs, but not Rex.
Feathers on Rex, might as well have him wear a fedora.
Meus Renaissance
Member
If they're abandoning realism I hope they start giving the dinos the ability to breath fire. That'd be terrifying yo.
SuperSonic1305
Member
So a person can't watch a dinosaur movie like the first 3 and still believe that they had feathers?
Anton Sugar
Member
I really hate seeing this being bandied about as some end to the argument.
The depiction of the dinosaurs in JP were, overall, incredibly accurate. Details about individual dinosaurs were changed or misunderstood--Dilophosaur venom, T-Rex vision, raptor size (and intelligence)--but the dinosaur design and physiology has a strong basis in reality and, for the time, studies/archaeology.
i dont worry most of his arguments are based on fiction.
and wings since it seems to be what people want out of dinosaurs.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
lol, nice.
Ragnarok
Member
Making stuff up just because it would be cool and wasn't out of the THEORETICAL realm of possibility, doesn't mean it doesn't contradict science. Taking artistic liberties has always been a part of Jurassic Park and to totally change the design of iconic creatures to make it scientifically accurate is silly.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
I'll take a giant eagle over a giant... salamander?... any day. And in an attempt to make it cooler for team no-feathers, I'd still take a giant chicken over a giant Komodo dragon any day.
VS
VS
I agree... Seriously people.. arguing for FIVE PLUS PAGES about feathers on a movie dinosaur. Come the fuck on. There's bigger issues in the world.
Monocle
Member
There's two options here: 1) potentially improve the world with fiction, or 2) perpetuate a myth with fiction.
I for one don't like to waste good opportunities.
Byakuya769
Member
Hahahahah. No comment on the post, just wanted to share a laugh at that book.
A salamander isn't a reptile. You gots to go!
Scientifically accurate, should make it the new trailer.
pants
Member
3) Stop looking at summer blockbusters as educational tools
Illithid Dude
Member
Boooo. Especially for a series that has tried to be as scientifically accurate as possible (besides the velociraptor size), this is really disappointing.
Foxtastical
Member
Entertainment has an impact on culture just like education does.
Anton Sugar
Member
Holy shit! You're right! Guess we should give up our inconsequential passions/hobbies if the stakes aren't high enough.
Professor Renegade
Banned
Having feathers on the dinosaurs would be nice, but it would kind of disrupts the canon of the franchise. In the novel there's a scene where Doctor Wu and Hammond are discussing the "authenticity" of the dinosaurs; Wu wanted to genetically engineer the dinosaurs to make them more exciting to customers, but Hammond wanted the Dinosaurs to be as genuine as possible.
Let's look at the movies themselves though. What we know from the story is that they cloned the dinosaurs from preserved DNA samples found in amber, but since most of the gene sequences were incomplete they had to fill in the missing sections with amphibian/frog DNA. Now I'm not a scientist, so I'm going to guess that some of those missing sequences could have contained the genes for feathers, or it could also be possible that the feather gene was "turned off" (for lack of a better term) during the cloning process.
It's also worth noting that In Jurassic Park 3, Grant calls the dinosaurs on Jurassic Park "theme park monsters" and that real dinosaurs only existed millions of years ago, alluding to the idea that the JP dinosaurs are in fact not genuine at all. I know JP3 was a crappy movie, but it's still considered canon.
From a scientific standpoint it would be nice to have the feathered dinosaurs, but should the canon be risked for that? I'd love to know what Michael Crichton would have to say about this if he was still alive.
Let's look at the movies themselves though. What we know from the story is that they cloned the dinosaurs from preserved DNA samples found in amber, but since most of the gene sequences were incomplete they had to fill in the missing sections with amphibian/frog DNA. Now I'm not a scientist, so I'm going to guess that some of those missing sequences could have contained the genes for feathers, or it could also be possible that the feather gene was "turned off" (for lack of a better term) during the cloning process.
It's also worth noting that In Jurassic Park 3, Grant calls the dinosaurs on Jurassic Park "theme park monsters" and that real dinosaurs only existed millions of years ago, alluding to the idea that the JP dinosaurs are in fact not genuine at all. I know JP3 was a crappy movie, but it's still considered canon.
From a scientific standpoint it would be nice to have the feathered dinosaurs, but should the canon be risked for that? I'd love to know what Michael Crichton would have to say about this if he was still alive.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
I was going by looks compared to original JP designs. Hence the question mark.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
I'll take a giant eagle over a giant... salamander?... any day. And in an attempt to make it cooler for team no-feathers, I'd still take a giant chicken over a giant Komodo dragon any day.
VS
Reptiles can look very cool too. Like these bad boys:
Unlike the bland Komodo.
Renagade: That's probably the best way to treat it, but just like in Dr. Grant's hearing people don't always want to know how real dinosaurs were.
You clearly aren't getting those tools elsewhere.
pants
Member
Entertainment has no responsibility toward educating the masses.
Anton Sugar
Member
XxSlasherMcGirkxX
Member
A large amount of people find feather dinosaurs lame, why is that so hard for people to grasp. It's not like people are denying that certain dino's had feathers, it's just that we vastly prefer the classic version even if it's inaccurate. It's a movie not a science museum.
radios shipping overview
Member
Feels are more important now, seems like.
Would you be for or against dinosaurs that could turn invisible and breath fire? Assuming they came up with an in universe explanation, of course.
Anton Sugar
Member
This is, technically, true. But wouldn't it be great if the filmmakers felt some sense of responsibility towards known science?
Jurassic Park educated the masses once before:
Dragoshi1
Member
The movie wouldn't be the same if the Dinosaurs were fully feathered.
The Dinosaurs are fine the way they are, especially the Rex and its brethren, the Velociraptors in each movie are great too, from the Tiger striped ones in JP2 to the lightly feathered ones in JP3.
He better not cave to people complaining, it's like taking Godzilla and having him covered in fur for the next Godzilla movie.
The Dinosaurs are fine the way they are, especially the Rex and its brethren, the Velociraptors in each movie are great too, from the Tiger striped ones in JP2 to the lightly feathered ones in JP3.
He better not cave to people complaining, it's like taking Godzilla and having him covered in fur for the next Godzilla movie.
Treefingers
Member
No it doesn't, but it doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't.
ebullientprism
Member
If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
pants
Member
Personal insults over dinosaur feathers? At this point I know I have won whatever back and forth I could potentially have had with you :lol
Also I wanted to ask if furry is a bad term, I don't know much about that world, if it is I apologize
Avian is the word you're looking for. <3
- Status