Jurassic Park Series

[DoomRulz]

It's a matter of logical consistency. If the previous movies depicted the dinosaurs as non-feathered, these new ones cannot change that since it would contradict the previous entries, so, deal with it, this is a fictional universe.

It's a new park which means it's a new chapter in this universe. There's no reason why they couldn't give us proper dinosaurs and say something like, "We've extracted full genetic codes and don't need frogs" or something like that.

I like this idea.  Then we could have both dinosaurs from the first Jurassic Park make an appearance anyway too.

Even that's not bad. It would be a way to compare the old designs to the new ones.

In regards to JP 3...I'm going to go with the belief that because Site B had dinos living on their own, they were able to evolve into their natural forms, free of inGen's control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk6kJGU_Qng#ws

He referenced AvP:R, lol.

[DoomRulz]

http://dinogoss.blogspot.ca/2014/11/is-jurassic-world-stealing-from.html

Sorry for the clickbait title. The answer is yes. Yes they are.

It's one thing when toy companies do it.

It's quite another when a big-budget Hollywood movie starts stealing the work of independent paleoartists and illustrators for use in their production design.

Not cool

[frenchfries]

It's a matter of logical consistency. If the previous movies depicted the dinosaurs as non-feathered, these new ones cannot change that since it would contradict the previous entries, so, deal with it, this is a fictional universe.

It's a new park which means it's a new chapter in this universe. There's no reason why they couldn't give us proper dinosaurs and say something like, "We've extracted full genetic codes and don't need frogs" or something like that.

I like this idea.  Then we could have both dinosaurs from the first Jurassic Park make an appearance anyway too.

Even that's not bad. It would be a way to compare the old designs to the new ones.

In regards to JP 3...I'm going to go with the belief that because Site B had dinos living on their own, they were able to evolve into their natural forms, free of inGen's control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk6kJGU_Qng#ws

He referenced AvP:R, lol.

That doesn't make any sense.

[OmegaZilla]

...how can things evolve in the span of little less than a decade?

The JPIII guys were a different breed, obviously. Either a subspecies, other species, or what have you.

[DoomRulz]

Maybe they were growing on their own from when they were hatchlings? Site B was used as a breeding ground, remember that.

[OmegaZilla]

...Yeah, but Evolution doesn't quite work like that.

[Ratchetcomand]

I think the whole feathered debate is stupid. We had other movies with Dinosaurs like Disney's Dinosaur (2000), Land of the Lost (2009) and Godzilla (2014, he's a dinosaur in the movie) and no one bitch about them not having feathers.

[DoomRulz]

Disney's Dinosaur was made before the relationship between dinosaurs and birds came into where it is now, Land of the Lost, well who really cares about that movie, and Godzilla isn't a dinosaur, capital D. He's simply a remnant of the Mesozoic.

Also, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10956-006-9001-y

Researchers who have investigated the public understanding of science have argued that fictional cinema and television has proven to be particularly effective at blurring the distinction between fact and fiction. The rationale for this study lies in the notion that to teach science effectively, educators need to understand how popular culture influences their students' perception and understanding of science. Using naturalistic research methods in a diverse middle school we found that students who watched a popular science fiction film, The Core, had a number of misunderstandings of earth science concepts when compared to students who did not watch the movie. We found that a single viewing of a science fiction film can negatively impact student ideas regarding scientific phenomena. Specifically, we found that the film leveraged the scientific authority of the main character, coupled with scientifically correct explanations of some basic earth science, to create a series of plausible, albeit unscientific, ideas that made sense to students.

[Vertigo]

In regards to JP 3...I'm going to go with the belief that because Site B had dinos living on their own, they were able to evolve into their natural forms, free of inGen's control.

In the first novel, only the wild-born raptors were able to change colour. Pretty sure Crichton's intention was that the second-generation animals (not lab-born, in other words) were the authentic, natural state, which I think is what you're getting at.



(Slightly ninja'd on the following)

I think the whole feathered debate is stupid. We had other movies with Dinosaurs like Disney's Dinosaur (2000), Land of the Lost (2009) and Godzilla (2014, he's a dinosaur in the movie) and no one bitch about them not having feathers.

Disney's Dinosaur is pre-Microraptor, at that point there was still conjecture that the bristly structures we kept finding on coelurosaurs could have just been stacks of collagen fibre.
Land of the Lost was so widely panned that animal plausibility was the least of its problems. It's taken me ten minutes just to find a picture of their dromaeosaur, and I don't think the whole of the internet contains a cap of their Compsognathus.
Godzilla isn't a dinosaur (not in the American and original versions anyway, I can't speak for the rest of the series). The last film had him as a member of a reptile group that evolved to subsist on radiation.

Anyway. The whole reason why there's any upset about this is that it's Jurassic Park. This follows up a film that changed the way the world envisaged dinosaurs, publicised the latest research, created a huge boom of researchers that's propelled the science forward further in 20 years than the previous hundred, and which (originally) strove for such a degree of scientific accuracy that they brought the world's most famous palaeontologist onto the production. It's held to a higher standard than a comedy or fantasy movie, and is all part of the reason that first film was the highest-grossing non-Cameron production of the 20th century - millions of people across the planet wanted to see authentic dinosaurs.

But yeah, honestly, I'm getting tired of arguing about it. I'll still see the movie, Jurassic Park's one of my favourite films of all time. Even if JW's universally panned, I'll still be in that cinema. It'll have to be the Godfather of genetically modified bullshittasaur movies to get me in there more than once, though. And I'll probably always look at it as the movie which sold the original's soul down the creek, even if it does open with Chris Pratt taking requests on this, the day of his daughter's wedding.

Not going to bother saying anything else on the subject though, at least until I've seen it.

[KiramidHead]

And I'll probably always look at it as the movie which sold the original's soul down the creek,

NO FEATHERS = NO SOUL

[Vertigo]

*Claps very, very slowly.*

[DoomRulz]

In regards to JP 3...I'm going to go with the belief that because Site B had dinos living on their own, they were able to evolve into their natural forms, free of inGen's control.

In the first novel, only the wild-born raptors were able to change colour. Pretty sure Crichton's intention was that the second-generation animals (not lab-born, in other words) were the authentic, natural state, which I think is what you're getting at.

Yes, thank you

Anyway. The whole reason why there's any upset about this is that it's Jurassic Park. This follows up a film that changed the way the world envisaged dinosaurs, publicised the latest research, created a huge boom of researchers that's propelled the science forward further in 20 years than the previous hundred, and which (originally) strove for such a degree of scientific accuracy that they brought the world's most famous palaeontologist onto the production. It's held to a higher standard than a comedy or fantasy movie, and is all part of the reason that first film was the highest-grossing non-Cameron production of the 20th century - millions of people across the planet wanted to see authentic dinosaurs.

Chris Pratt taking requests on this, the day of his daughter's wedding.

Was that a Family Guy reference?

[Vertigo]

I couldn't remember if it was Family Guy or The Simpsons, just the ancestral root.

[frenchfries]

I for one am glad that they decided to stick with designs that i fell in love with as a kid.

[xeno-kaname]

And I'll probably always look at it as the movie which sold the original's soul down the creek,

NO FEATHERS = NO SOUL

Yeah that was pretty ridiculous xD It hasn't sold it's soul. The dinosaurs were hybrids in the original already. Just not so predominantly. And the park being open was Hammond's dream. Feels more connected to the original than the other two sequels.

Definitely feels like the franchise FOUND it's soul again, even though some changes (or lack thereof) were implemented for this day and age.

I mean the movie can very well still suck but it's heart is in the right place. Even with the hybridization, since it's a logical next step considering the history of the franchise and it's emphasis on genetic engineering.