Support NeoGAF

[Darklord]

Thanks, Damon.

You should see my Prometheus 2 script.

 

[ascii42]

The Frog DNA caused the dinosaurs to not grow feathers.

Boom.

 

[Kurita]

even the newest power rangers (super sentai) has the t rex with feathers.

Seriously? Didn't pay attention.

 

[MisterHero]

Who knows what dino-clones grown with frog eggs look like? Maybe they deemed the JP project successful because they got creatures resembling dinosaurs.

 

[Omegasquash]

Let's overturn tables together, GAF.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Jurassic Park isn't just fiction. It damaged science and knowledge. People "learn" by watching movies. It took JP to change the perception of dinosaurs to the public, while paleontologists as early as the late 60s have been changing their views.

There was tons of stuff in JP that was known at the time to be total bs that was just included for dramatic effect. The central plot device that made the movie possible was popsci bs. This is no different.

 

[endresults]

Jurassic Park isn't just fiction. It damaged science and knowledge. People "learn" by watching movies. It took JP to change the perception of dinosaurs to the public, while paleontologists as early as the late 60s have been changing their views.

The image of T-Rex is already ingrained in popular culture as a big lizard without feathers. It might be inaccurate, but who cares? I like my dinosaurs scaly.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

To be realistic I couldn't care less lol. I used to be obsessed with dinosaurs when I was young, wanted to be a paleontologist so bad.

Anyone got any links to studies about feathers on dinosaurs? I find it difficult to believe that you can tell a 65 million year old skeleton had feathers. Hell, I don't even know how you can tell a chicken had feathers just from its skeleton.

Just look at the feathered fossils and you'll have your answer.

The image of T-Rex is already ingrained in popular culture as a big lizard without feathers. It might be inaccurate, but who cares? I like my dinosaurs scaly.

Afaik the general believe is that larger dinosaurs didn't have feathers because of their ability to keep warm through increased bodymass,

 

[Goldrush]

Disappointed because we already seen featherless dinosaurs. Feathers would be more visually and technically impressive. At the very least, I hope they add a lot more colors.

 

[Omegasquash]

Jurassic Park isn't just fiction. It damaged science and knowledge. People "learn" by watching movies. It took JP to change the perception of dinosaurs to the public, while paleontologists as early as the late 60s have been changing their views.

It's SCIENCE Fiction!

 

[SteveWinwood]

So he's a creationist too right? He apparently just likes ignoring science.

Also the world is flat.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

The Frog DNA caused the dinosaurs to not grow feathers.

Boom.

Exactly. The frog DNA fills in some of the gaps

 

[Agnostic]

It can be cool if they end the movie with a badass feathered dino as a cliffhanger or something. Have a matted dino face covered with blood and make it look evil as hell.

 

[endresults]

Afaik the general believe is that larger dinosaurs didn't have feathers because of their ability to keep warm through increased bodymass,

Argh, the square-cube law strikes again. Forgot about that.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Hell, just from a movie standpoint feathered Dinosaurs can fill a interesting, new role that we haven't seen before.

Jurassic Park isn't just fiction. It damaged science and knowledge. People "learn" by watching movies. It took JP to change the perception of dinosaurs to the public, while paleontologists as early as the late 60s have been changing their views.

Yup.

Who knows what dino-clones grown with frog eggs look like? Maybe they deemed the JP project successful because they got creatures resembling dinosaurs.

But Jurassic Park wasn't a monster movie, it was a animal movie. They wanted to make the Dinosaurs living breathing animals, not monsters. As time has gone on we have learned that more and more was wrong, but the entire effort of the movie was to embrace Dinosaurs as they really were. To break the inaccurate perception of them.

Ignoring feathers ignores the franchises heritage.

 

[robertsan21]

Im guessing the production company would spend so much more money rendering feathers etc for this movie and so they took the decision to not have the dino´s be as accurate as possible.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

That sucks. I think feathered dinos look so much more interesting. It's just a movie though so no big deal.

 

[Buntabox]

The JP sequels have mostly just embraced the monster movie aspects of the first film. This one is clearly going the same route. So much for bringing the wonder back like the first hour of JP1 has.

 

[DonMigs85]

How would they come up with an explanation though if they suddenly sprouted feathers?
Do they just conveniently ignore it in-movie or just say the amphibian DNA caused them to have featherless skin?
Both the movies and books already took liberties anyway, like the frilled venom-spitting Dilophosaurus and the chameleon-like Carnotaurus.

 

[Escape Goat]

How would they come up with an explanation though if they suddenly sprouted feathers?
Do they just conveniently ignore it in-movie or just say the amphibian DNA caused them to have featherless skin?

Life finds a way.

 

[GK86]

I'm out. I wanted feathers dammit.

 

[Spider from Mars]

Feathers Not Guaranteed

 

[ascii42]

How would they come up with an explanation though if they suddenly sprouted feathers?
Do they just conveniently ignore it in-movie or just say the amphibian DNA caused them to have featherless skin?
Both the movies and books already took liberties anyway, like the frilled venom-spitting Dilophosaurus and the chameleon-like Carnotaurus.

Pretty much. How I would do it is have them find more complete DNA, or have an improved process or something, so when they create new dinosaurs, those dinosaurs have feathers.

 

[J-Rod]

I would like to see some feathers, but I think it is silly to expect Hollywood to teach anything.

 

[The Real Abed]

So he's a creationist too right? He apparently just likes ignoring science.

Also the world is flat.

But why dinosaurs at all? Doesn't he know dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by Satan himself to fool man? And bringing them back just to play God is probably going to make the real God pretty angry? Like Old Testament angry.

 

[Anticitizen One]

Shouldn't you pro feather people be asking Colin about it on Twitter and emailing Universal Studios??

 

[BorkBork]

Lame.

 

[botty]

It has been explicitly stated in both the books and movies that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are not actual dinosaurs. And They shouldn't have feathers, because feathers are dumb and aesthetically displeasing.

 

[Rawket Lawnchair]

Don't really care as it's only a movie, but I would have liked it to keep a semblance of realism by finally introducing feathers. The vast majority of people who haven't studied anything close to Biology, Geology and Paleontology still think that dinosaurs were huge lizards and not huge chicken. It would help give some realistic meant pictures of dinosaurs to the newer generations as well.

 

[Nevasleep]

If I wanted to see feathers, I'd go bird watching. #TeamNoFeathers

 

[pants]

Tell you what #teamfeathers, I'll join your cause if you give me a trilogy of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World (no feathers) then you can do what you want to Jurassic Park.

 

[Eidan]

So the first battle in the great war has begun.

 

[chickdigger802]

Seriously? Didn't pay attention.

They do try to keep it accurate with the current science. It's pretty cool.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Exactly. The frog DNA fills in some of the gaps

People use that frog DNA thing like it solves all problems. The frog DNA was a plot device to allow the dinosaurs to breed in a single sex environment. You might as well use that to make the dinosaurs croak like frogs, jump like frogs, and act like frogs.

 

[Morts]

Aren't velociraptors supposed to be only two feet tall too?

 

[Wuthering_Heights]

Fuck feathers.

 

[Platy]

THAT SAID :

The Frog DNA caused the dinosaurs to not grow feathers.

Boom.

This actualy gives the franchise an excuse.

But would be interesting to see a character talks about the feathers in the movie

 

[Darklord]

Aren't velociraptors supposed to be only two feet tall too?

Yep. They're Utahraptors in the movie.

 

[methane47]

Easy to explain away with the movie. Show a young dino loosing its feathers and becoming monsterous behind a glass wall.

Scientist #1: "Its sad that they lose their feathers so early"
Scientist #2: "Maybe one day we'll perfect the cloning process"

BAM DONE

 

[Rawket Lawnchair]

Aren't velociraptors supposed to be only two feet tall too?

Meh, yeah. The actual species portrayed in the films is the Deinonychus (Velociraptor had the size of a chicken), but since most people would either not be able to pronounce it or understand what it means, they chose to call them Velociraptors.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Easy to explain away with the movie. Show a young dino loosing its feathers and becoming monsterous behind a glass wall.

Scientist #1: "Its sad that they lose their feathers so early"
Scientist #2: "Maybe one day we'll perfect the cloning process"

BAM DONE

This was in TLW novel. The baby rexes had proto feather coverings on them.

 

[SuperSonic1305]

It's not a documentary.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I'm with the paleontologists on this one.

It's also a wasted filmmaking opportunity. Just because dinos have some degree of feathers and philoplumage, it's still up to artistic interpretation to define patterns, all combinations of color, etc. The door's wide open to design a lot of unexpected, startling creatures for the film. This would even be helpful in a business sense - give marketing a lot of fresh material to work with that wasn't a re-tread of previous JP aesthetics.

 

[Spider from Mars]

It's not a documentary.

Now it's not. Thanks a lot Colin

 

[sestrugen]

Easy to explain away with the movie. Show a young dino loosing its feathers and becoming monsterous behind a glass wall.

Scientist #1: "Its sad that they lose their feathers so early"
Scientist #2: "Maybe one day we'll perfect the cloning process"

BAM DONE

I'm impressed.

 

[Cow Mengde]

It's not a documentary.

That's the problem. JP has more sway than real documentaries. That's why JP hurt the knowledge of dinosaurs. It has reach no documentary can achieve.

Plus, I want a dinosaur movie to have... DINOSAURS. I know, weird right.

 

[televator]

As a fan of the plumage, I demand feathered dinos for my money.

 

[Snaku]

For the last goddamn time: Jurassic Park dinosaurs aren't real dinosaurs. They were genetically reconstructed from amber extracted DNA fragments spliced with a variety of current species. They even had version numbers like software, each update bringing them closer to man's preconception of what a dinosaur looked and acted like. Henry Wu even advocated for a new series of dinosaurs that were slow and sluggish to match the current stereotype of the time.

To force the current crop of dinosaurs on either island to suddenly evolve feathers after only a generation or two (depending on when JP4 takes place) is simply absurd. They weren't designed to have them, and not enough time has passed for them to evolve.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

"Aren't they meant to have feathers?"
"The DNA cloning process is complicated, not everything is 100%, these Dinosaurs are featherless. Bald if you will."

Done, feathers written out of JP forever.

My idea from another thread:

"A velociraptor? It's been found they had feathers."
"Ah, the dino DNA was spliced with that of amphbians... No feathers. It's also why they are so large, more akin to Utahraptor."
"Why not call them that?"
"Hammond was creating a themepark, not a zoo."

But I'd love to see feathers on dinos in a movie with cg and animamatronics as well made as Universal funds. There's still a big difference between JP1 dinos and those found in Peter Jackson's King Kong. KK doesn't come close.

 

[Rawket Lawnchair]

But should it not be close to the current scientific truth, just because it's not a documentary?