Support NeoGAF

[Kimosabae]

One of this contraptions biggest missed opportunities. Instead of being capable of marketing itself as a relatively accurate and respectable, yet fun, science movie that could educate movie-goers a la Gravity and the original movie, it decided to just be another slasher sifi flick, making all the same mistakes the sequels made along the way it seems.



Hitokage

 

[Gambit 1138]

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."

In the new movie they are making up "genetic hybrid" creatures. If they can do that they can put feathers on the dinosaurs. These aren't the same animals from the first film those are all dead because of the Lysine Contingency.

 

[CrazyDude]

One of this contraptions biggest missed opportunities. Instead of being capable of marketing itself as a relatively accurate and respectable, yet fun, science movie that could educate movie-goers a la Gravity and the original movie, it decided to just be another slasher sifi flick, making all the same mistakes the sequels made along the way it seems.



Hitokage

The original was no way educational, the original was also just a slasher flick.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

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."

+

It's canon now.

Have you guys seen the trailer for Jurassic World? New park. New Dinosaurs. Anything is fair game. They even say that their genetic capabilities have increased dramatically.

 

[HGStormy]

I guess it makes sense if their splicing dinosaur DNA with lizard DNA but I don't know.

Feathered dinosaurs are probably harder to make in CG too.

Would have been cool to see, though.

 

[YoungFa]

Doesnt feathers and fur take much longer to render and is therefor more expensive? Might have be part of the decusion against it.

 

[injurai]

Have you guys seen the trailer for Jurassic World? New park. New Dinosaurs. Anything is fair game. They even say that their genetic capabilities have increased dramatically.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson still holds Pluto as a honorary planet.

Dinosaurs shall be honorarily featherless.

 

[Kimosabae]

The original was no way educational, the original was also just a slasher flick.

Of course it was. Was it 1:1? No. But it was the first time dinosaurs had been depicted onscreen with any sort of fidelity whatsoever. A lot of people's interpretations of dinosaurs in the 90's were that they were all man-eating carnivores that terrorized neanderthals. People learned more than they ever knew previously about dinosaurs once that movie hit and interest in the subject of prehistory went through the roof.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Doesnt feathers and fur take much longer to render and is therefor more expensive? Might have be part of the decusion against it.

I have no doubt that it may have been a contributing factor, but it doesn't explain the complete disregard for any feathered species. Again, even if they were background players, mingling amongst herds of non feathered Dinosaurs, never really doing anything that important.

 

[DarkKyo]

I don't like the idea of dinosaurs without feathers now. It's just not right.

 

[studyguy]

I mean the original Jurassic was educational about dinosaurs in the way Twister educated me on the fact that tornados will fucking murder you and your family and there are people crazy enough to study them.

I personally don't care for accuracy, they're talking about Sea World for dinosaurs after all.

 

[WanderingWind]

Finding out about feathered dinosaurs made me understand hardcore creationists. I was happier before finding out the mighty T-Rex most likely looked like a big, old dumb fuzzy thing dammit. I refuse to believe they had feathers. In another 20 years, they'll find a whole preserved one in the crevices on Garey Busey's face and we'll find out it's they were all badass looking still. Which is good, because nobody is going to want to airbrush a giant stupid ugly birdosaur on the side of their van.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

For feather haters: we still have plenty of skin impressions of Dinosaurs, meaning not all were covered in feathers, at least not completely. However, a good amount of Dinosaurs were feathered, with both existing side by side.

 

[Neidii]

I don't like the idea of dinosaurs without feathers now. It's just not right.

Yeah same. Feels so wrong. It's as weird as trying to imagine a bird without feathers.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

JP/JW's Dino's were made in a lab using reptile DNA to fill the gaps.

There's your explanation for no feathers.

Featherphiles really need to just accept it....and be more worried about this Hybrid thing and the Raptor Avengers they've created for JW over some dumb feathers.

 

[FairyD]

I really wanted feathers.

Maybe in future movies they'll put feathers on them.

 

[BumRush]

Surely some dinosaurs in warm climates had less feathers than others???

#NOFEATHERS!

 

[Cow Mengde]

IMO thats not the movie nor the writers problem, nor responsibility. Its fiction, they can do what they want. The freaking things were brought back from Mosquitos for christs sake, trying to play the 'BUT THE SCIENCE DOE' card is hilariously tryhard.

There's an entire research paper calling out this kind of bullshit thinking.

 

[WanderingWind]

There's an entire research paper calling out this kind of bullshit thinking.

There's a research paper that debunks authors authority in the realm of science fiction? I'd like to read that. Link?

 

[Spacejaws]

The Lost World had a sorta explaination for the colour palate changes. The design team has said that as all the dinosaurs in the first film were female, in the Lost World we would see proper males for the first time.

They gave the velociraptors a tiger stripes and such thinking that the males might have some bright designs to attract females kinda like plumage on birds.

JP 3 is stupid tho.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

People claim to love Dinosaurs.

Then they say fuck feathers and scoff at people who want real dinosaurs in a dinosaur movie.

I just don't get it.

And again, I'm fine with the classic JP Rex and Raptors taking the spotlight. Don't touch them, they're classics. But who the fuck would throw a fit over feathered Gallimimus? Hell, I'm happy with classic Galli's, but throw in some feathered cousin species amongst the flock.

 

[Horsemama1956]

My problem is there is no real proof they had feathers. We'll never really know which species had feathers or even what they actually looked like.

It's a stupid debate that will never have a conclusive answer.

 

[FFP2]

Fuck that feather shit. I just want to see multiple "bald" T-rex mess everything up.

 

[DarkKyo]

Yeah same. Feels so wrong. It's as weird as trying to imagine a bird without feathers.

Definitely. I mean they came to be the most powerful creatures on earth because of their evolution! Why the hell would they want to chunk out a large part of their essence?

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

My problem is there is no real proof they had feathers. We'll never really know which species had feathers or even what they actually looked like.

It's a stupid debate that will never have a conclusive answer.

Huh? We have proof that plenty of species had feathers, and even have an idea of what some looked like.

I could say the same thing about Dinosaur skin. That doesn't make sense.

 

[Heroman]

My problem is there is no real proof they had feathers. We'll never really know which species had feathers or even what they actually looked like.

It's a stupid debate that will never have a conclusive answer.

there proof they had feather and we can guess hich type did have them

 

[IdreamofHIME]

There's an entire research paper calling out this kind of bullshit thinking.

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.

Want feathers? Go write a script and get $200 million dollars funding.

I promise you i will buy a ticket on release.

 

[NIGHT-]

Featherless Dino's is the least of the problems the film has, going off the trailer. Looks like a train wreck

 

[Blablurn]

Featherless Dino's is the least of the problems the film has, going off the trailer. Looks like a train wreck

Really? For me it looks like the best thing ever.

 

[PBalfredo]

JP dinos should have feathers because movies like this are the biggest influence on the public perception of science.

If JP1 had feathers on dinos, no one would be for featherless dinos.

 

[Soybean]

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."

Why would it need to be explained at all? Star Trek didn't explain why displays in the 24th century (TNG) looked like CRTs and now displays set in the 23rd century (recent Trek movies) are flat panels. Representations evolve. It's fine.

 

[Lum1n3s]

But I want featherless dino's in the movie =(!

I'm not going to lie though that one picture of that feathered T-Rex was pretty sexy. Does anyone have a pic of it?

 

[victreeb3l]

Fuck the feathers.

 

[God Dayumm]

JP/JW's Dino's were made in a lab using reptile DNA to fill the gaps.

There's your explanation for no feathers.

Featherphiles really need to just accept it....and be more worried about this Hybrid thing and the Raptor Avengers they've created for JW over some dumb feathers.

Those things are a consequence of having no feathers. They jumped the shark by having bald dinos, so why no jump it all the way?

 

[Gambit 1138]

All they had to do was introduce some species of Dinosaur that they haven't shown yet in the JP universe with feathers and this whole debate would have been settled. But Trevorrow and Universal want to be little assholes about it.

 

[Charles Foster Kane]

I think no feathers is lame. The movie looks like is probably going to be crap though, so I don't really care.

 

[Anton Sugar]

My problem is there is no real proof they had feathers. We'll never really know which species had feathers or even what they actually looked like.

It's a stupid debate that will never have a conclusive answer.

lolwut

My thoughts, from the trailer thread:

We've never really had anyone attempt to portray feathered predators on-screen before, so how do we know they're not scary? Velociraptors are scary because Jurassic Park made them scary. No one outside of the dinosaur world knew what the hell a velociraptor was prior to 1993.

I take issue with the thought that feather dinosaurs CAN'T be scary. It just hasn't been done yet. Hence my example: prior to JP, ask anyone if they thought a velociraptor was scary and they would have no idea what you were talking about. If they did know about raptors, they would probably be scary but only in the general sense of "yeah, there were some big predators alive back then" fear.

Jurassic Park added a terrifying mystique to raptors, largely through how Spielberg handled them. There's no reason why the same couldn't happen with feathered dinos.

What I am trying to say is, it's all in the execution. There is a reason why the T-Rex in JP3 is not terrifying on sight: it pops its head up from a carcass and gives a goofy roar, then turns into a CG monster.

Compare that to how Spielberg handled the introduction of Rex in JP1, or even the raptors. We are scared of these creatures because the movie is effective at making them scary.

Any talented director could make a feathered dinosaur feel "scary":

 

[Nekofrog]

that's scarier than it would be without feathers

 

[Joni]

The Velociraptors in Jurassic Park are most likely utahraptor based on their size. There is no direct evidence they had feathers. The same goes for the T-Rex. No direct evidence. Spinosaurus and allosaurus same. Sauropods again, not so much evidence.

 

[Manu]

The Velociraptors in Jurassic Park are most likely utahraptor based on their size. There is no direct evidence they had feathers. The same goes for the T-Rex. No direct evidence.

I'll never understand the "JP raptors are Utahraptors" argument. I thought they were bigger in JP because back then Deinonychus was considered a species of Velociraptor.

Also, I thought all dromaeosaurids had feathers.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

It wouldn't be that hard to have some of these:

running amongst these:

 

[AuthenticM]

I'm still disappointed that they aren't feathered. Like, wtf ? Were the executive scared that giving the dinosaurs feathers would have disinterested some people in paying to see the movie ?

 

[Anton Sugar]

The Velociraptors in Jurassic Park are most likely utahraptor based on their size. There is no direct evidence they had feathers. The same goes for the T-Rex. No direct evidence.

I believe there is evidence of other members of the dromaeosaur and tyrannosaur families having feathers.

Regardless, what are you arguing/what is your precedent? That the dinosaur that the JP velociraptor is incorrectly modeled after, did not have feathers, so it should not have feathers?

I'll never understand the "JP raptors are Utahraptors" argument. I thought they were bigger in JP because back then Deinonychus was considered a species of Velociraptor.

Also, I thought all dromaeosaurids had feathers.

I think Crichton used (by accident or on purpose, I'm not sure) or mixed up deinonychus with velociraptors in the book, in terms of its qualities.

Some more on "just because a few of this family had feathers, does it mean they all had feathers":

A few weeks ago I pondered whether it was accurate to say that all dromeosaurs (i.e. Velociraptor, Deinonychus, Utahraptor, etc.) had feathers based upon the possesion of feathers and feather-like integuments on fossils like Microraptor gui, Cryptovolans, and Sinornithosaurus, stating that perhaps it wasn’t the most responsible thing to say that all later dromeosaurs had feathers because of their presence in some of the basal forms coming out of China. The esteemed paleontologists Dr. Thomas R. Holtz and Dr. Mark Norell both responded to my queries, helping to illuminate the issue for me. Dr. Holtz had this to say;

Actually, at this point there are several feathered dromaeosaurid fossils: a couple specimens of Sinornithosaurus and the many specimens of Microraptor (incl. Cryptovolans). More to the point, there are no specimens of the integument of any dromaeosaurid lacking feathers, nor are there any specimens of dinosaur phylogentically closer to Aves than Dromaeosauridae that lack feathers. Even more, the specimens for which we have integument for the next series of outgroups to the dromaeosaurid-bird clade (oviraptorosaurs, therizinosauroids, alvarezsaurids, and Archaeoptyerx and Pedopenna, if they wind up there) have either honest-to-goodness feathers or protofeather fuzz.

Thus, the simplest inferences is that true feathers were already present in the common ancestor of Dromaeosauridae + birds. While loss of this trait in any given branch is certainly possible, to infer such a change without positive information is dishonest.

Our inference that all dromaeosaurids were feathered is the same inference that monotremes were furry.

Given the current evidence, it is up to those who argue for non-feathered dromaeosaurids to provide a reason to argue for that position, as the evidence supports feathered “raptors” as the basal condition.

Indeed, dromeosaurs had a suite of characteristics that are more derived and closer to birds than Archaeopteryx, so if any of the dromeosaurs lost feathers, as Dr. Holtz notes, we would be left to speculate as to how this occurred. Unfortunately preservation as exquisite as seen in the fossils coming out of China is rare, so North American dromeosaurs may have feathers that were not preserved because of taphonomy. Dr. Norell also had this to add, via personal communication;

From a parsimony perspective we would predict that all dromaeosaurs had feathers at least during part of their lifespan. That is not to say that they were completely covered with feathers like Microraptor is. Because both avialans, some dromaeosaurs, a troodontid, and oviraptorosaurs are known to have feathers, and the explanation for this is that they are descended from the same feathered ancestor, we would predict that all of the animals descended from this ancestor (velociraptor,Citipati, deinonychus, troodon, wetc.) would also have been feathered. That is the same argument we use for other groups. For instance we have just as much evidence that Velociraptor was feathered as we do that australopihticines like Lucy had hair. Hope this helps.

Demoncarnotaur probably has better sources, but food for thought. That was from 2007, after all.

 

[Joni]

I'll never understand the "JP raptors are Utahraptors" argument. I thought they were bigger in JP because back then Deinonychus was considered a species of Velociraptor.

The guys behind the movie had joked they created a bigger raptor and a couple of months later they actually found one, the Utahraptors.

Also, I thought all dromaeosaurids had feathers.

Presumed through lineage. There are only about 50 species where we know for sure they had feathers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathe...r_species_preserved_with_evidence_of_feathers

I believe there is evidence of other members of the dromaeosaur and tyrannosaur families having feathers.

Regardless, what are you arguing/what is your precedent? That the dinosaur that the JP velociraptor is incorrectly modeled after, did not have feathers, so it should not have feathers?

If we're arguing scientific accuracy, there are enough reasons not to include feathers.

 

[DarkFlow]

I'm still disappointed that they aren't feathered. Like, wtf ? Were the executive scared that giving the dinosaurs feathers would have disinterested some people in paying to see the movie ?

Does it really matter? It's a movie about making dinos come back to life with Mosquito blood and frog dna. It's not exactly aiming for scientific fact here.

 

[DocSeuss]

Keep the fiction consistent. Damn the science.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

^ This series has zero constancy with its designs, minus the T-Rex.

Does it really matter? It's a movie about making dinos come back to life with Mosquito blood and frog dna. It's not exactly aiming for scientific fact here.

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?

 

[Nikodemos]

The Velociraptors in Jurassic Park are most likely utahraptor based on their size. There is no direct evidence they had feathers. The same goes for the T-Rex. No direct evidence.

It's pretty certain by now that all dromaeosaurs and troodontids had feathers. In fact, all maniraptorans (including the very odd-looking therizinosaurs) were covered in them.

As for tyrannosaurids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutyrannus

that's scarier than it would be without feathers

A huge shaggy beast with a malevolent gleam in its eye. Yup that would be pretty scary.

 

[Joni]

It's pretty certain by now that all dromaeosaurs and troodontids had feathers. In fact, all maniraptorans (including the very odd-looking therizinosaurs) were covered in them.

As for tyrannosaurids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutyrannus

As I said, no direct evidence. I know it is assumed indirectly.

 

[Manu]

The guys behind the movie had joked they created a bigger raptor and a couple of months later they actually found one, the Utahraptors.

I know that, what I mean is that they're not Utahraptors in the movie, they look like (and probably are) Deinonychus.