Jurassic Park Series

[King Rathalos]

They're dinosaurs, real or otherwise. There's no actual reason why they can't look like what science tells us. And if that's your reasoning, then I guess you really wouldn't mind if they were all tail-draggers, right?

not at all tbh

[BANE]

They're dinosaurs, real or otherwise. There's no actual reason why they can't look like what science tells us. And if that's your reasoning, then I guess you really wouldn't mind if they were all tail-draggers, right?

Feathers look dumb

No feathers looks dumb.

You know you don't actually believe that.

[KiramidHead]

I'm not averse to seeing feathered dinosaurs in a movie, but to just crowbar it into this franchise four movies in would be jarring.

[DoomRulz]

I've not seen anyone go really uppity about it, just stating their opinion.

The basic point is that the original film balanced accuracy with 'cool'. So did film two. So did film three. So does this. The Mosasaurus as far as I can see is anatomically accurate -- but is oversized. The original T.Rex had small anatomical inaccuracies regardless of the feathers/non-feathers thing. So on and so forth.

Yes, and they could easily have been corrected. Why does a dinosaur need to be inaccurate in order to be "cool"? Dinosaurs are cool just the way they are.

'Tail draggers' wouldn't be minded, no, but audience today likes the new fast Dinosaurs. It's what CGI brought in. Fast lethal things. Tail draggers are associated with old Dinosaur movies only Harryhausen fans such as me remember fondly.

I wouldn't be surprised if people were complaining about the elimination of the classic tail-dragging posture, but grew to love the correct posture because it made sense. There's no reason why feathered dinosaurs couldn't or wouldn't have the same effect.

You also have to take into account that the JP Dinosaurs have become imprinted in the public imagination much like the Terminator, or Alien, or Robocop have. They're icons.

Except that all of those creatures are wholly fictitious, created in someone's mind. Dinosaurs aren't. Dinosaur design can evolve, just like the science has because dinosaurs were real creatures.

Also, like you said, they've become imprinted in the public imagination, ergo, they have shaped how the general public sees dinosaurs. No reason why that can't change.

They're dinosaurs, real or otherwise. There's no actual reason why they can't look like what science tells us. And if that's your reasoning, then I guess you really wouldn't mind if they were all tail-draggers, right?

Feathers look dumb

No feathers looks dumb.

You know you don't actually believe that.

I kinda do. I enjoy seeing how different artists present dinosaurs with plumage. Every illustration is different.

[Alien³]

I'll post this I guess...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPqpwfXdYQU

[King Rathalos]

yoshi for 5th movie pls

[KiramidHead]

yoshi for 5th movie pls

And Bowser for 6th movie

[OmegaZilla]

Yes, and they could easily have been corrected. Why does a dinosaur need to be inaccurate in order to be "cool"? Dinosaurs are cool just the way they are.

It doesn't, but most of the times accuracy tampers with creative liberty. But that's besides the point; if the original Jurassic Park started out with this filmmaking philosophy, why should the new film be blamed for continuing tradition?

I wouldn't be surprised if people were complaining about the elimination of the classic tail-dragging posture, but grew to love the correct posture because it made sense. There's no reason why feathered dinosaurs couldn't or wouldn't have the same effect.

In reality a lot of old people miss the tail draggers. If you listen to a few interviews to Harryhausen & associates, they miss the tail draggers.

Regardless, the Jurassic Park Dinosaurs work visually for a lot of people, whereas Dinosaurs with feathers are inevitably associated with everyday things such as parrots or pigeons or what have you. It's the same reason most Movie Monsters are skinny and emaciated -- making them with a six pack doesn't make them threatening.

Except that all of those creatures are wholly fictitious, created in someone's mind. Dinosaurs aren't. Dinosaur design can evolve, just like the science has because dinosaurs were real creatures.

Irrelevant.

Also, like you said, they've become imprinted in the public imagination, ergo, they have shaped how the general public sees dinosaurs. No reason why that can't change.

They won't take the risk, and that's kind of understandable.

[MrSpaceJockey]

Feathers don't have to look dumb.  No one looks at an eagle and thinks thinks the plumage makes them look any less fearsome of a predator. 

I'm perfectly happy that the Jurassic World dinosaurs look the same as they do in the other movies - like Omegazilla said, they are iconic movie characters.  Less excited about public perception of dinosaurs remaining unchanged.  I go to a fairly "prestigious" math and science high school in my city and I had the utmost difficulty convincing a friend that dinosaurs evolved into birds, of that a whole bunch of them had feathers. 

He also could not wrap his head around the idea that any of the plesiosaurs or pterosaurs weren't dinosaurs, though I am expecting a scene in Jurassic World where someone calls the mosasaur a marine dinosaur, and a scientist character corrects them.  That would at least be one prehistoric animal misconception averted.

In a world where Gravity or Interstellar get analyzed so much for the quality of its science (hi Neil), I do feel dread for what Jurassic World is going to face.

[Gilfryd]

There's definitely a part of me that wished they had the balls to just go, "Screw it, they have feathers now." But at the same time I don't mind seeing familiar JP dino designs in a JP movie. It's just when every other f**king movie and TV show uses JP inspired designs rather than looking at what we've learned about these animals since the early 90s. There totally needs to be that next big dinosaur movie that pushes the way the public sees them into the 21st century.

[Magegg]

Feathers are awesome

I want some f**king Owlbear 

[DoomRulz]

Yes, and they could easily have been corrected. Why does a dinosaur need to be inaccurate in order to be "cool"? Dinosaurs are cool just the way they are.

It doesn't, but most of the times accuracy tampers with creative liberty. But that's besides the point; if the original Jurassic Park started out with this filmmaking philosophy, why should the new film be blamed for continuing tradition?

Tradition is a pathetic excuse. If everything was done according to "tradition", we would never evolve as a species or as a society. And to directly answer your question, it's because we didn't know then what we know now.

I wouldn't be surprised if people were complaining about the elimination of the classic tail-dragging posture, but grew to love the correct posture because it made sense. There's no reason why feathered dinosaurs couldn't or wouldn't have the same effect.

In reality a lot of old people miss the tail draggers. If you listen to a few interviews to Harryhausen & associates, they miss the tail draggers.

Well there you go, like I said.

Regardless, the Jurassic Park Dinosaurs work visually for a lot of people, whereas Dinosaurs with feathers are inevitably associated with everyday things such as parrots or pigeons or what have you. It's the same reason most Movie Monsters are skinny and emaciated -- making them with a six pack doesn't make them threatening.

Trust me when I say people will be able to tell the difference between a Velociraptor covered in feathers versus a turkey.

Except that all of those creatures are wholly fictitious, created in someone's mind. Dinosaurs aren't. Dinosaur design can evolve, just like the science has because dinosaurs were real creatures.

Irrelevant.

No, it isn't. Dinosaurs were subject to the laws of nature like any other animal and so they should be treated with the respect they deserve.

Also, like you said, they've become imprinted in the public imagination, ergo, they have shaped how the general public sees dinosaurs. No reason why that can't change.

They won't take the risk, and that's kind of understandable.

What risk? There isn't any. If anything, younger kids would enjoy seeing it because new dinosaur kids books are starting to reflect the latest in discoveries.

[MrSpaceJockey]

Trust me when I say people will be able to tell the difference between a Velociraptor covered in feathers versus a turkey.

you tell that little shit grant

[OmegaZilla]

Tradition is a pathetic excuse. If everything was done according to "tradition", we would never evolve as a species or as a society. And to directly answer your question, it's because we didn't know then what we know now.

What does that have to do with this? The film is going on safe ground because that's what most sequels do. You go ballsy, you go risky.

Knowing many things did not stop the JP Dinosaurs from being partially inaccurate to their real life counterparts even with the information available at the time. The T.Rex's teeth are sharper than what they would have been, and the arms are slightly longer than they should be. And so on and so forth.

Trust me when I say people will be able to tell the difference between a Velociraptor covered in feathers versus a turkey.

I can tell the difference between a pug and a pug-headed werewolf. Doesn't make the pug-headed werewolf any more threatening -- or cool looking. That's what the audience cares for.

No, it isn't. Dinosaurs were subject to the laws of nature like any other animal and so they should be treated with the respect they deserve.

...Countless films take liberties with what animals can and cannot do or what they look like. Real sharks would do about 20% of what you see in Jaws.

What risk? There isn't any. If anything, younger kids would enjoy seeing it because new dinosaur kids books are starting to reflect the latest in discoveries.

God yes there is. When people see Jurassic Park sequels, they expect Jurassic Park Dinosaurs. The filmmakers don't want to risk to disappoint audiences. They're going safe.


I am wholly indifferent to this whole ordeal. The point is, does this film have the rights to do what it is doing? Yes it does.

[DoomRulz]

Yet you're forgetting the real problem that all these "liberties" contribute to, and that is perpetual ignorance about dinosaurs. People to this day still go to museums and are shocked that Velociraptor wasn't much bigger than a small dog or that Dilophosaurus doesn't have a frill. For crying out loud, the mosasaur from the trailer is bring called a dinosaur, and the film isn't even out yet!

Please tell me how many people were inspired to become palaeontologists after the sequels were released. As for JP inspiring people, yes that's true when people bring it up, but it's those same people who grow aggravated when dinosaurs are portrayed inaccurately on screen.

It's not as if people are going to storm out of the theatre if a dinosaur has some plumage on it. I really don't think you're giving audiences any credit at all.