Support NeoGAF

[Boss Doggie]

So because there is no way we can be 100% certain on anything no one should ever try? What an awful defeatist attitude and I would argue one that is the complete antithesis of what Jurassic Park was originally about.

So that explains Archen and Archeops's Defeatist.

 

[Madness]

They did just that for the first one.

Yeah they did do that and it was wildly successful and now those images of dinosaurs are ingrained, not only in the fans who grew up watching, but the movies, toys, merchandise and games since.

They're not going to change the look of the Dinosaurs magically because two decades after the first, science now believes they were more avian and feathered.

Like I said, I could see how a new movie, not part of a series already established could pull it off. Jurassic Park can't and by the looks of it from the directors official stance, won't.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Yeah they did do that and it was wildly successful and now those images of dinosaurs are ingrained, not only in the fans who grew up watching, but the movies, toys, merchandise and games since.

They're not going to change the look of the Dinosaurs magically because two decades after the first, science now believes they were more avian and feathered.

Like I said, I could see how a new movie, not part of a series already established could pull it off. Jurassic Park can't and by the looks of it from the directors official stance, won't.

So we should be slave to public relations and image? JP manages to be "updated" a few times but now when they have a chance to make a good movie after 2 terrible sequels they're not?

 

[Madness]

So we should be slave to public relations and image? JP manages to be "updated" a few times but now when they have a chance to make a good movie after 2 terrible sequels they're not?

How does maintaining the look of the Dinosaurs from the earlier films mean it won't be a good film? You guys are ridiculous. They have a LOT more to lose than gain, by doing so.

You're not a slave to anything. You're free to do what you want and make your films as accurate as possible. The point here is, the overwhelming majority of fans and the director for the new film, have chosen to keep the look of the Dinosaurs the same.

My simple suggestion, vote with your wallet and not go if it upsets you that much.

 

[Green Mamba]

How does maintaining the look of the Dinosaurs from the earlier films mean it won't be a good film? You guys are ridiculous. They have a LOT more to lose than gain, by doing so.

You're not a slave to anything. You're free to do what you want and make your films as accurate as possible. The point here is, the overwhelming majority of fans and the director for the new film, have chosen to keep the look of the Dinosaurs the same.

My simple suggestion, vote with your wallet and not go if it upsets you that much.

Well I'll be the first to let you all know when I get the opportunity to make a multi-million dollar summer blockbuster about dinosaurs with the backing of a major studio.

Until then, we are, indeed, free to do what we want, and if what we want involves expressing our opinions and making sure the people in charge know about them, then so be it.

 

[Rentahamster]

Yeah they did do that and it was wildly successful and now those images of dinosaurs are ingrained, not only in the fans who grew up watching, but the movies, toys, merchandise and games since.

They're not going to change the look of the Dinosaurs magically because two decades after the first, science now believes they were more avian and feathered.

Like I said, I could see how a new movie, not part of a series already established could pull it off. Jurassic Park can't and by the looks of it from the directors official stance, won't.

Just like how the old, outdated images of dinosaurs were ingrained in pop culture's consciousness before JP1 came out?

 

[neoism]

wooow they're getting a no name to direct this.. who the fuck is Colin Trevorrow

 

[Concept17]

Kinda sad. Its not a huge deal, but it would have been nice to get a better glimpse of what we now know dinosaurs looked like.

I can only imagine their reasoning is costs. It would likely take far longer to do feathers in CG. Hell the rendering time would like quadruple.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

Kinda sad. Its not a huge deal, but it would have been nice to get a better glimpse of what we now know dinosaurs looked like.

I can only imagine their reasoning is costs. It would likely take far longer to do feathers in CG. Hell the rendering time would like quadruple.

If the reasoning is costs then the movie is not going to look great in the first place.

 

[Mr.Wreckless]

Just like how the old, outdated images of dinosaurs were ingrained in pop culture's consciousness before JP1 came out?

There is a huge difference between the outdated image of a T-Rex standing more vertical and dragging its tail being changed to the JP model and giving them feathers. The difference between those 2 changes are monumental. Humans are not afraid of birds, yeah an Ostrich can take me down if it wanted to but im not going to fear for my life if i see an Ostrich walking around. You cover dinosaurs in feathers and the fear and amazement factor instantly drops with the general public.

And to everyone thinking JP does a great job educating people, how do you explain all the people who still think Spinosaurus was made up for the 3rd movie? If people still dont accept that as a real creature you think they are going to accept feathers?

 

[Savitar]

It's not like Jurassic Park is exactly 100% accurate to begin with, we always learn or discover new stuff that makes what was believed previously untrue. Feathers is just one new aspect to it. Do I care if they don't give them feathers in the next movie? Not really, they never had them for three movies now so I don't see a need to suddenly change it up now one way or the other. If they wanted they can more or less give a throw away line about the scientist making sure the dinos didn't have them since they thought it was a mistake or error in how they went about recreating them.

Either way I'm sure the next batch of dino movies will have feathery beast of death for all to enjoy.

 

[Anticitizen One]

There is a huge difference between the outdated image of a T-Rex standing more vertical and dragging its tail being changed to the JP model and giving them feathers. The difference between those 2 changes are monumental. Humans are not afraid of birds, yeah an Ostrich can take me down if it wanted to but im not going to fear for my life if i see an Ostrich walking around. You cover dinosaurs in feathers and the fear and amazement factor instantly drops with the general public.

And to everyone thinking JP does a great job educating people, how do you explain all the people who still think Spinosaurus was made up for the 3rd movie? If people still dont accept that as a real creature you think they are going to accept feathers?

There are people who also don't believe in evolution why should we pacify them and let them hold everyone else back?

 

[Boss Doggie]

There is a huge difference between the outdated image of a T-Rex standing more vertical and dragging its tail being changed to the JP model and giving them feathers. The difference between those 2 changes are monumental. Humans are not afraid of birds, yeah an Ostrich can take me down if it wanted to but im not going to fear for my life if i see an Ostrich walking around. You cover dinosaurs in feathers and the fear and amazement factor instantly drops with the general public.

And to everyone thinking JP does a great job educating people, how do you explain all the people who still think Spinosaurus was made up for the 3rd movie? If people still dont accept that as a real creature you think they are going to accept feathers?

Because ideas eventually disperse.

And you are using a misconception on birds - you're referring to the USA view it seems. Other countries see birds as dangerous and conniving.

 

[Anticitizen One]

So I suppose jp4 opening scene shows a bunch of Jews shoveling dinosaur bones into the ground 100 years ago and the finale will be a trex fighting a stegosaurus in front of a volcano.

 

[UrbanRats]

No feathers? I'll skip it then.

It's time to stop this madness and JP should be the one to do it.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

I wouldn't mind feathers if they absolutely nailed the look and managed to make the dinosaurs look terrifying and majestic with them. But oh well, seems like the decision's made.

So I suppose jp4 opening scene shows a bunch of Jews shoveling dinosaur bones into the ground 100 years ago and the finale will be a trex fighting a stegosaurus in front of a volcano.

 

[Rentahamster]

There is a huge difference between the outdated image of a T-Rex standing more vertical and dragging its tail being changed to the JP model and giving them feathers. The difference between those 2 changes are monumental. Humans are not afraid of birds, yeah an Ostrich can take me down if it wanted to but im not going to fear for my life if i see an Ostrich walking around. You cover dinosaurs in feathers and the fear and amazement factor instantly drops with the general public.

Depicting the dinosaurs as more in line with what our modern science findings tell us is not the same thing as turning the dinosaurs into ostriches. Those are not the same things. You are constructing a strawman argument here.

And to everyone thinking JP does a great job educating people, how do you explain all the people who still think Spinosaurus was made up for the 3rd movie? If people still dont accept that as a real creature you think they are going to accept feathers?

You yourself stated that the original JP educated the general populace with what science's current understanding of dinos was back then.

Yeah they did do that and it was wildly successful and now those images of dinosaurs are ingrained, not only in the fans who grew up watching, but the movies, toys, merchandise and games since.

So yes, it did do a great job of educating people, or at the very least, giving the people a cinema representation of dinosaurs that at least tried to be as scientifically accurate as possible.

 

[Boss Doggie]

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!

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

Was playing Jurassic: the Hunted last night (PS3) and it was very silly seeing the more accurately sized velociraptors with a slimy, scaly skin as opposed to feathers. It was awkward. When I first played it in 09, it didn't bother me as much, but NOW!? It just looked wrong.

The deinonychus, my favorite, aren't feathered either and instead have a row of spikes along the spine (but look less awkward and their stripey, spikey skin blends in with the environment. Yes, they could still replicate that with feathers, I know).

I can only wish for Primal Carnage: Genesis to feature feathered dromaeosauridae.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

I don't understand why they can't have 1 or 2 species of dinosaurs that haven't been in the films before featuring feathers.

That would be ideal. It would likely keep all camps happy, and also give casual viewers a diverse offering of Dinosaurs.

Im still holding out on what he meant to say was "No feathers on returning Dinosaurs...feathers on new species". Blah.

 

[rallaren]

Is it possible that there was different amount and/or thickness of feathers on the same species of dinosaurs? Maybe it could change depending on area and time period. Like fully covered in feathers -> thousands of years -> almost featherless -> etc...

A puzzling subject.

 

[cdyhybrid]

How does maintaining the look of the Dinosaurs from the earlier films mean it won't be a good film?

Because the first (and best) movie took a risk and used the current science to change how they portrayed the dinosaurs. This movie seems too scared or not capable of doing the same. It makes it seem like it'll be a mediocre cash-in on the Jurassic Park name, going down the same road the sequels did.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Because the first (and best) movie took a risk and used the current science to change how they portrayed the dinosaurs. This movie seems too scared or not capable of doing the same. It makes it seem like it'll be a mediocre cash-in on the Jurassic Park name, going down the same road the sequels did.

I don't think it was that much of a risk as it made the dino's look much meaner and more dynamic. I think it will be harder to do the same with the inclusion of feathers.

 

[Cow Mengde]

I think it will be harder to do the same with the inclusion of feathers.

That's total bullshit.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

I really hope gifted artists can work their magic recreating JP raptors and gallimimus with feathers whether in stills, gifs or video form to sway the minds of the naysayers.

 

[Mr.Wreckless]

You yourself stated that the original JP educated the general populace with what science's current understanding of dinos was back then.

It did so because the changes were easily acceptable to the general population. Thats because the changes were miniscule in comparison to covering them with fur and feathers.

Nobody had ever heard of a Spinosaurus before so when people saw it they didnt think it was real and a large percentage of people still think it was made up. The same thing would happen with the feathers.


Some of you are trying to equate the changes made to the dinosaurs in JP1 to adding feathers and its not even remotely comparable. Its an extremely large change compared to making them faster and walk differently.

There are people who also don't believe in evolution why should we pacify them and let them hold everyone else back?

Was anyone trying to make a blockbuster movie on the theory of evolution back when the majority of the public denied it? Remember this movie needs to sell tickets.

Remember im coming into this from the mindset of what would sell the most tickets, as that is what the movie studio is interested in.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

I really hope gifted artists can work their magic recreating JP raptors and gallimimus with feathers whether in stills, gifs or video form to sway the minds of the naysayers.

While not exactly what you are talking about, I would say this is the closest I have seen to JP feathered Raptors:

I mean, as you can see, the recent JP comics even had freaking feathers. Would it have killed them to represent some feathers in the movie? Also, I think this goes pretty far to show that feathers don't stop things from looking 'scary'.

 

[Byakuya769]

I think feathered dinosaurs tease the imagination more too. We know what large reptiles look like, we have quite a few of them still living. Vicious, "giant birds" with teeth? Most people haven't seen that, especially not with the fidelity that JP could provide.

 

[Rentahamster]

It did so because the changes were easily acceptable to the general population. Thats because the changes were miniscule in comparison to covering them with fur and feathers.

Done right, feathered dinosaurs can be acceptable too. Especially when provided with the context and marketing that yes, this is closer to what we believe dinosaurs actually looked like.

Nobody had ever heard of a Spinosaurus before so when people saw it they didnt think it was real and a large percentage of people still think it was made up. The same thing would happen with the feathers.

Some of you are trying to equate the changes made to the dinosaurs in JP1 to adding feathers and its not even remotely comparable. Its an extremely large change compared to making them faster and walk differently.

There really isn't a way to quantify your "large percentage of people" and if they were even in the majority. I can take the anecdotal "most people accepted the updated dinos of JP1" since that is obviously the case, but "most people though Spino was fictional" is not so obvious. Even if they did, the right marketing and awareness campaign will do enough to educate the moviegoers.

Feathered dinos is a fairly large change, but I don't think it is a change that would make the dinos fundamentally less threatening or dangerous. Therefore, they remain as a source of danger and tension for the plot.

Remember im coming into this from the mindset of what would sell the most tickets, as that is what the movie studio is interested in.

I don't think feathered dinos would necessarily decrease box office sales. A shitty movie and shitty marketing decreases box office sales.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Feathers on my T-Rex?


FUCK THAT.

Science and accuracy be dammed.

 

[HalfBakedProphet]

There is a huge difference between the outdated image of a T-Rex standing more vertical and dragging its tail being changed to the JP model and giving them feathers. The difference between those 2 changes are monumental. Humans are not afraid of birds, yeah an Ostrich can take me down if it wanted to but im not going to fear for my life if i see an Ostrich walking around. You cover dinosaurs in feathers and the fear and amazement factor instantly drops with the general public.

Are you a marketing manager for Universal? I've became dumber for having read this.

"B-b-but we need to pander to the oblivious and lowest common denominator!"

 

[Green Mamba]

Nobody had ever heard of a Spinosaurus before so when people saw it they didnt think it was real and a large percentage of people still think it was made up. The same thing would happen with the feathers.

Nobody had heard of a Velociraptor before the first Jurassic Park either. I think this has more to do with how the animal is depicted in the film.

I don't think people would have too much of a problem with something like this:

outside of people who just hate feathers period.

I think it all comes down to how the film presents the animals to how willing audiences are to accepting them. Feathered dinosaurs could be done, provided they are given the respectable treatment the animals had in the first film and not the monster spectacle of the third.

If the filmmakers are that adverse to change and plan on playing it that safe to save them ticket sales that doesn't inspire much faith in me for the quality of the film.

 

[VICTORsaurio]

(dramatic trailer music)

THEY'RE BACK...

FURRIER...

SCARIER...

JP IV

 

[cdyhybrid]

I don't think it was that much of a risk as it made the dino's look much meaner and more dynamic. I think it will be harder to do the same with the inclusion of feathers.

You don't know that. Feathered dinos have never been done on the scale of a JP film.

 

[Anton Sugar]

I mean, as you can see, the recent JP comics even had freaking feathers. Would it have killed them to represent some feathers in the movie? Also, I think this goes pretty far to show that feathers don't stop things from looking 'scary'.

Were there any JP comics/graphic novels worth purchasing? I used to buy them waaay back in the day and don't remember much good.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Were there any JP comics/graphic novels worth purchasing? I used to buy them waaay back in the day and don't remember much good.

To be honest, I haven't read any of the new stuff, but I heard it wasn't bad. The art looks cool at least.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

your nostalgia-pain fuels me

 

[Boss Doggie]

Yeah I don't the correlation between feathers and less ticket sales.

I mean sure, you'd lose the more close-minded JP fans, but then it'd still sell if it's properly advertised and is well made. I mean, despite gen wunners complaining in Pokemon it still sold well.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

ancient earth animals were so cool until scientists ruined them and my childhood with hair. elephant was my favorite herbivore, and then they showed that it had a hose on its face and flappy hearing things. and don't get me started on the humanoid species like the baboons, the normal humans, and the gorillas. they look like fuzzy cute rats with pink asses now. yeah, that's really scary.

 

[Loxley]

I've just read the OP and haven't read any of the GAF responses yet, but I'm going to assume it's a lot of "Good! I don't want feathery sissy dinosaurs in my Jurassic park!".

brb.

*edit - Hmm, surprisingly split. Me, I'm for feathered dinosaurs all the way since I have zero nostalgia for Jurassic Park, so I'm kinda bummed they're just straight-up ignoring the most important revelation about dinosaurs as a whole in the last two decades.

 

[Cow Mengde]

your nostalgia-pain fuels me

Let's be fair, a couple of those are completely wild to the point that not even paleontologists think they looked like that. The Apatosaurus is one of them.

 

[Manu]

Pictures

I need source for these, they're awesome.

 

[Byakuya769]

ancient earth animals were so cool until scientists ruined them and my childhood with hair. elephant was my favorite herbivore, and then they showed that it had a hose on its face and flappy hearing things. and don't get me started on the humanoid species like the baboons, the normal humans, and the gorillas. they look like fuzzy cute rats with pink asses now. yeah, that's really scary.

What is this? Where can I find these recreations?

 

[Cow Mengde]

What is this? Where can I find these recreations?

I remember reading about this one Tetzoo or something. They were used as examples of how future people might interpret these animals if they have been extinct for millions of years.

 

[Gozer the Gozerian]

ancient earth animals were so cool until scientists ruined them and my childhood with hair. elephant was my favorite herbivore, and then they showed that it had a hose on its face and flappy hearing things. and don't get me started on the humanoid species like the baboons, the normal humans, and the gorillas. they look like fuzzy cute rats with pink asses now. yeah, that's really scary.[/QUOTE]

Brilliant

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

pics

nightmare fuel, if I ever saw one.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Let's be fair, a couple of those are completely wild to the point that not even paleontologists think they looked like that. The Apatosaurus is one of them.

yeah, that and the modern 'reconstructions' are just illustrating the point that there's a lot of stuff that we can only guess at with bones and extremely limited preservation of soft tissues. given the extreme diversity of forms in modern animals that definitely reach absurd levels, there's not much stopping fun speculation about all the stuff we're not seeing just from slapping muscles and skin on a tetrapod skeleton in the "standard" way and assuming that's that


fake edit: the book that has both the crazy dinosaur speculative art and the reconstructions of modern animals as future paleontologists might see them is All Yesterdays


from top to bottom:

Cow
Vulture
Elephant
Crane
Baboon (the fangs are clearly poisonous!)
Human
Cat


There are also some good ones of whales, chickens, and horses.

 

[Cow Mengde]

fake edit: the book that has both the crazy dinosaur speculative art and the reconstructions of modern animals as future paleontologists might see them is All Yesterdays

Oh right, that was the book. I've been meaning to get it!

 

[ClassyPenguin]

They could do so much creatively with fathered dinos. Coloring, camouflage, more realistic behavior...it could be as full of amazement as the first one. I mean, Avatar was basically more human smurfs and people loved that shit.

 

[KidGalactus]

I remember reading about this one Tetzoo or something. They were used as examples of how future people might interpret these animals if they have been extinct for millions of years.

It was an exercise pointing out how the way we present extinct animals in art is pretty narrow. Part of the exercise was reconstructing modern animals the way we reconstruct animals in the fossil record.