Nope.
Shrink wrapped un-naturalistic JP theropods look as goofy and outdated as this
to me.
I love this design. It's like a barn owl dinosaur.
Whoa, stunning.
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.
Twice!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!
I could just imagine a scene with a velociraptor with feathers stalking out of the shadows and shaking its plumage in a low growl.
No lie, that would be insanely cool.
Also, for people who say bright, colorful and feathered DInosaurs wouldn't appeal or sell.. I counter with this:
Now, again, I'm not calling for all Dinosaurs in JW to have feathers. Just some new species to provide contrast against the classic designs.
But uh... those aren't feathered at all...
Cameron actually kinda criticised Spielberg for having only dull colored dinosaurs with regards to his own Pandoran fauna.Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply they were. Just that their designs are very...colorful. And they share design cues that people say wouldn't have appeal.
Cameron actually kinda criticised Spielberg for having only dull colored dinosaurs with regards to his own Pandoran fauna.
It's definitely disappointing because it caters to a stupidly nostalgic generation that grew up with Scalie designs. It's disapointing but not worthy of becoming the topic of another pointless Internet controversy.Everybody with the 'it's just a movie defense'...yeah, but some people may like it to do more than that. I don't see why that's hard to empathize with. And it seems a bit like that 'free speech means you can't criticize what I'm doing' nonsense that drives me crazy. The filmmakers are entitled to the choice they made, but I personally think it is bad one, one that is also pretty retrograde and ALSO also not keeping with the spirit of the first movie--you know, moving away from the weird lumbering upright T-rexes and such. There were liberties taken to make a good story, but there was a bit of extra value there that helped advance the layperson's scientific value.
Getting back to it being an artistic choice, that choice is so frustratingly safe and seems more than anything else like the filmmakers saying 'Fuck if I know how to make my own thing.' Instead it's trading on iconography previously established, which again is an artistic choice but one of such conservatism that it just isn't doing anything. They could introduce so many awesome color palettes, new scenarios of tiny fliers, an unnerving disconnect between something almost looking cute and then being deadly-as-shit but nope! Bank on nostalgia.
It's disappointing is what I'm saying.
It's definitely disappointing because it caters to a stupidly nostalgic generation that grew up with Scalie designs. It's disapointing but not worthy of becoming the topic of another pointless Internet controversy.
Just remember, feathers can't be scary.
Not at all.
Don't mean to shit on you guys and your feather dinosaur pics, but it's not the feathers that make them look menacing. One could argue that they do look less menacing, in fact. It's the action that's defining those pictures more than anything, imo. A killer teddy bear would be scary if you saw it rip a man apart. I do like the diversity feathers/protofeathers give them, though.
Ah, I see. Makes no real difference to me either way. Feathers would allow for a bit more vibrance, but this is a decision they've already made.That is the point. No one is saying the feathers make them more scary, just that feathers do not make them cute and cuddly which a lot of people have essentially said.
Anyway I have low expectations for JW ever since they announced no feathers. It goes completely against one of the original intents of JP and that was to not only make a thrilling movie but to show people what dinosaurs were actually like based on scientific knowledge at the time. Throwing that intent out the window with JW completely killed my expectations for the movie. It showed how the director would rather make a crazy blockbuster than a movie with real depth. That's how I felt anyway. Hopefully I am wrong, and it turns out decent.
Does it? I thought it was already well established that the original Jurassic Park was never intended to be scientifically accurate when they chose a completely different species to represent Velociraptors. They knew it wasn't a raptor, but they liked the name and still wanted a bigger, nasty monster. Got all sorts of flak for going with a "fake" raptor, but they still established that the movie never intended to be 100% accurate.It goes completely against one of the original intents of JP and that was to not only make a thrilling movie but to show people what dinosaurs were actually like based on scientific knowledge at the time.
What was really exciting about Jurassic park was that at the time it was the feeling of this is what dinosaurs actually look like! Finally REAL dinosaurs.I guess some of that is gone with the purposfull distancing from what scientists currently know.
I also don't think the cg would be as convincing with feathers. It usually looks too smooth and soft and not actually there.
It is useful to differentiate between the intention of the park and the the intention of the movie I think. The park was always happy with whatever the fuck popped out as long as it looked cool, but the draw of the movie for me was the realistic depiction of the dinosaurs. I think the makers were pretty keen on accuracy for the most part, aside from the raptors as I said.Does it? I thought it was already well established that the original Jurassic Park was never intended to be scientifically accurate when they chose a completely different species to represent Velociraptors. They knew it wasn't a raptor, but they liked the name and still wanted a bigger, nasty monster. Got all sorts of flak for going with a "fake" raptor, but they still established that the movie never intended to be 100% accurate.
It was always intended to be a science fiction movie. Not a science movie.
Talk about delusionalDinosaurs in pop culture really define what many think and expect out of dinosaurs.. embracing modern science in big movies helps the public perception more than a museum could ever dream of. By doing so,it will bring more people to museums and keep our museums alive, and thus funding paleontologists. This is a great opportunity to bring modern dinosaur science mainstream, and possibly spark another dinosaur revolution of sorts.
Talk about delusional
Personally, I think John Conway's Tyrannosaurus rex looks way more frightening with feathers than it would naked.Don't mean to shit on you guys and your feather dinosaur pics, but it's not the feathers that make them look menacing. One could argue that they do look less menacing, in fact. It's the action that's defining those pictures more than anything, imo. A killer teddy bear would be scary if you saw it rip a man apart. I do like the diversity feathers/protofeathers give them, though.
Talk about delusional
Talk about delusional
Ok what about birds with lizard like tails?Yes, the Hoatzin is a living bird with hand claws.
Does it? I thought it was already well established that the original Jurassic Park was never intended to be scientifically accurate when they chose a completely different species to represent Velociraptors. They knew it wasn't a raptor, but they liked the name and still wanted a bigger, nasty monster. Got all sorts of flak for going with a "fake" raptor, but they still established that the movie never intended to be 100% accurate.
It was always intended to be a science fiction movie. Not a science movie.
I'm talking about the last part. Putting feathers in jp won't start a new Dino renaissance, it'll just make people think "why the fuck do they have feathers" and then maybe they go to YouTube to find out why.Delusional? What the fuck are you talking about? If you're gonna make that statement at least back it up.
You know, because pop culture never has an effect on mainstream knowledge, Jurassic Park least of all.
Oh.
I'm not saying Jurassic World adding feathers would suddenly make every museum solve its funding issues, but if you think it wouldn't have a positive impact then I think that's the delusional statement.
It's kinda hard to change your mind on this when there are actual fossils with feather impressions.I thought scientists and paleontologists were changing their minds on this? (yet again).
I saw a piece on the news a while ago saying they had found a fossilized lake bed in Asia or somewhere that had actual body imprints from various dead dino's, including T-Rex, that showed scaly skin but no evidence of feathers.
They were saying something about revising their theory to only smaller dino's that lived right at the end 65mil years ago had some feathers. They also said about raptors and T-Rex would only of had feathers on the top of their heads if at all.
I need to Google this to see if i can find anything on it.
I thought scientists and paleontologists were changing their minds on this? (yet again).
I saw a piece on the news a while ago saying they had found a fossilized lake bed in Asia or somewhere that had actual body imprints from various dead dino's, including T-Rex, that showed scaly skin but no evidence of feathers.
They were saying something about revising their theory to only smaller dino's that lived right at the end 65mil years ago had some feathers. They also said about raptors and T-Rex would only of had feathers on the top of their heads if at all.
I need to Google this to see if i can find anything on it.
Nope. Definitely not scary.
No paleontologist changed their minds. Ever year, more and more dinosaurs have been discovered with feathers. Every clade in coelurosauria now has examples of dinosaur with feathers. Coelurosauria is the direct ancestors to birds. This group includes Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, and Gallimimus. Dinosaurs like Allosaurus aren't part of this group though. A separate group further away from bird was also discovered with feathers this year. Now it's believe the ancestors of dinosaurs may have had fuzz or feathers.
Also, just because skin impression doesn't show feathers doesn't mean it doesn't have feathers. Fossils are rock, and you need very fine grain to preserve fossils with feathers.
Ok what about birds with lizard like tails?
Dinosaurs are pretty far removed, evolution wise, from the fish that crawled from the sea. It's like saying "well mammals didn't start out with hair because everything evolved from creatures that came from the sea." It's a non-sequitor.Well they have no problem finding fossils of plants and leaves which are pretty much the same thing.
Besides this wasn't me saying it, it was the guys on the news.
It seems to me that some dino's maybe started getting feathers as they started evolving into what would eventually become birds but its obvious that dino's didn't have feathers from the start. Everything on land evolved from creatures that came out from the sea and they obviously wouldn't of had feathers so.
Dinosaurs are pretty far removed, evolution wise, from the fish that crawled from the sea. It's like saying "well mammals didn't start out with hair because everything evolved from creatures that came from the sea." It's a non-sequitor.
But that was my point, the feathers had to evolve.
Ok what about birds with lizard like tails?
No paleontologist changed their minds. Ever year, more and more dinosaurs have been discovered with feathers. Every clade in coelurosauria now has examples of dinosaur with feathers. Coelurosauria is the direct ancestors to birds. This group includes Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, and Gallimimus. Dinosaurs like Allosaurus aren't part of this group though. A separate group further away from bird was also discovered with feathers this year. Now it's believe the ancestors of dinosaurs may have had fuzz or feathers.
There were feathered dinosaurs 160 million years ago at least. Feathers evolved long before Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor existed.But that was my point, the feathers had to evolve.