To quote from Wired: “We have as much evidence that T. rex was feathered, at least during some stage of its life, as we do that australopithecines like Lucy had hair”.As I said, no direct evidence. I know it is assumed indirectly.
As I said, no direct evidence. I know it is assumed indirectly.
I'm all for feathers. I'm sorry but dinosaurs are just fucking giant chickens and I think that's pretty bad ass.
^ This series has zero constancy with its designs, minus the T-Rex.
I don't get this argument. The concept is to bring prehistoric animals and modern man together, so yes some creative liberties with the realm of possibility have to be taken. Why does that mean that people shouldn't want the prehistoric animals to look like their respective prehistoric appearances?
You don't get that a movie wants to take artistic license with something that hasn't been alive for 60 million years...
^ This series has zero constancy with its designs, minus the T-Rex.
This guy used to scare the SHIT out of me as a kid (I know it's fur, but still):
There's a research paper that debunks authors authority in the realm of science fiction? I'd like to read that. Link?
lmao
and that's the problem with the world at the moment, people feeling their entitled to tell writers/musician/videogame makers or any other creative talent what do based on their fucking opinions.
This shows what an impact media can have on public knowledge. I will say, no movie is ever obligated to be accurate, but I tend to prefer certain measures being taken. The reason I'm actually upset with JW though is accuracy is in JPs foundation.
Good. Sometimes fiction is cooler than reality.
^ This series has zero constancy with its designs, minus the T-Rex.
I don't get this argument. The concept is to bring prehistoric animals and modern man together, so yes some creative liberties with the realm of possibility have to be taken. Why does that mean that people shouldn't want the prehistoric animals to look like their respective prehistoric appearances?
Good. Sometimes fiction is cooler than reality.
I'm OK with Allosaurus looking like this:
(though I think the scale is off)
Feathered dinos look way cooler. Can't imagine birds of prey without feathers, they'd look silly.
Once again, I welcome the classic designs, but there should have been feathered ones as well. They could have got creative as hell, and really sparked the imagination of audiences.
So how would you explain them now having feathers after not having feathers for the 20 years that the franchise has been around?
"We cloned them from this mosquito but then the mosquito remembered that it wasn't scientifically accurate and instantly mutated feathers onto pre-existing dinosaurs."
Except they don't.
In b4 deviantart feathered dinos being posted.
This isn't one of those times, though.Good. Sometimes fiction is cooler than reality.
Anyway, Jurassic Park greatly influences the public view of dinosaurs.
Once again, I welcome the classic designs, but there should have been feathered ones as well. They could have got creative as hell, and really sparked the imagination of audiences.
Which is why it's so great they're not including feathered dinos. That dumb idea has already become too pervasive.
This isn't one of those times, though.
More like six-foot turkeys.I'm all for feathers. I'm sorry but dinosaurs are just fucking giant chickens and I think that's pretty bad ass.
The feathered dinosaurs in DR were amazing to look at even with the animation flaws, and that was a made for TV special, without the budget of Jurassic Park. So CG limitations is bullshit.
This is how I feel about it. There's always going to be something to nitpick, but I guess this just isn't a battle of mine.I've tried. I swear to god I've tried
But I just can't bring myself to give a shit about non-feathered dinosaurs in Jurassic World. I'm a big science guy, but it's like.... such a non-issue
Sorry for the colossal bump, but I figured this was still an apt subject. I debated making a new thread, but figured this would serve the same purpose.
Now that the Jurassic World trailer is here, what are peoples thoughts?
Good. Sometimes fiction is cooler than reality.
This just looks weird imo, are there any birds today with claws for hands and wings?
The feathered dinosaurs in DR were amazing to look at even with the animation flaws, and that was a made for TV special, without the budget of Jurassic Park. So CG limitations is bullshit.
This guy used to scare the SHIT out of me as a kid (I know it's fur, but still):
Yeah, they could have hired the likes of Lacerda, Willoughby, Csotonyi etc. for art, dioramas, scene composition and other work. They could've gone wild with that Mark 2 TressFX. But no, we get the same formula from 1991, despite having bloody 20 years between then and now.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.
Hoatzins have two claws on each wing as chicks. They atrophy as the wings grow and disappear completely after fledging.This just looks weird imo, are there any birds today with claws for hands and wings?
This just looks weird imo, are there any birds today with claws for hands and wings?