Gallimimus without feathers makes me a sad panda :(
Maybe it's the croc dna?
But yeah, y u no keep up with science?
Also I don't like trailer-trailers.
Sort of reminds me about the whole early 20th century Lost World situation.
The very very first Lost World actually did try to have scientifically accurate dinosaurs, and was a major source of inspiration for pretty much every subsequent dinosaur movie until Jurassic Park came around. But unfortunately science marched on, and the dinosaurs became increasingly out of date and inaccurate.
Jurassic Park is released, and also tries to show the "new" view of dinosaurs, and mostly did a good job despite the occasional exaggeration. Unfortunately...again science marches on, but all movies continue to follow the Jurassic Park model for dinosaurs.
Now the JP dinosaurs look just as boring and outdated as the old stop motion dinosaurs, at least IMHO.
It also doesn't help that feathers are more difficult to CGI than "scales".
People already flip their $#!+ over genetically modified corn. How did they think they would react to a dinosaur?
-also, the main bad dino is going to be a fictional creature? Really?
I was looking forward to this, but the trailer is just so "meh".
I mean really "meh".
|
I agree with what someone else said n another fourm.
I want a cut of the trailer that does this.
Scientist Who Should Not Have Played God: "We have our first genetically modified hybrid."
Rocket Raccoon: "Ain't nobody like me 'cept me!"
Scientist Who Should Not Have Played God: "We have our first genetically modified hybrid."
Rocket Raccoon (slight mod): "there are no strings on me."
I'm kinda looking forward to this. I loved the first two movies when I was a kid (never saw the third one). I don't mind the fact that it's a genetically engineered hybrid dino causing issues either, I see it as a fairly logical progression in the "What has Science wrought!" element of the story. First you clone dinosaurs, and stupidly manage to make it possible for them to breed. 22 years later, some idiot starts combining dinos for the shiggles.
I mean let's face it, there are some incredibly intelligent people out there that really don't think about the consequences of what they're doing, they're just doing it FOR SCIENCE! or whatever their own motivation is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't
"Hey, we've figured out how to genetically modify dinosaurs!"
"Cool, what should we do with it? Hybridize some of those super cute herbivorous ones and put them in a petting zoo so we can monetize it here at this theme park?"
"What are you, an idiot? GENETICALLY ENGINEERED KILLING MACHINE WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!"
"Nothing could possibly go wrong."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sort of reminds me about the whole early 20th century Lost World situation.
The very very first Lost World actually did try to have scientifically accurate dinosaurs, and was a major source of inspiration for pretty much every subsequent dinosaur movie until Jurassic Park came around. But unfortunately science marched on, and the dinosaurs became increasingly out of date and inaccurate.
Jurassic Park is released, and also tries to show the "new" view of dinosaurs, and mostly did a good job despite the occasional exaggeration. Unfortunately...again science marches on, but all movies continue to follow the Jurassic Park model for dinosaurs.
Now the JP dinosaurs look just as boring and outdated as the old stop motion dinosaurs, at least IMHO.
It also doesn't help that feathers are more difficult to CGI than "scales".
Seriously? It might be nostalgia for some degree, but I for one still found the dinosaurs in JP to be really awesome. Very impressive special effects (they look way better than, say, the dinosaurs from the newest Transformers movie), and the movie really has a heart. For me, dinosaurs will always be those Great Lizards.
You guys, I think that new super-dinosaur's gonna get out.
The trailer for the trailer was more promising. Why are movie scientists always so bad at science? I think it serves a really technophobic agenda that advancing in Science is wrong because humans shouldn't play god.
That said, I am always down for a movie that has dinosaurs eating people.
|
|
You guys, I think that new super-dinosaur's gonna get out.
The trailer for the trailer was more promising. Why are movie scientists always so bad at science? I think it serves a really technophobic agenda that advancing in Science is wrong because humans shouldn't play god.
That said, I am always down for a movie that has dinosaurs eating people.
Yeah. I was playing god the other day and accidentally created two humans. After they got done stealing my mangoes I literally had to run them off.
"Hey, I know the regular dinosaurs destroyed the prototype for this theme park and killed a bunch of people, but listen: Let's do it all over again, only this time we'll splice a bunch of genes and create a totally new dinosaur along with all the raptors and everything."
*facepalm*
Like I said guys, sometimes the smartest people just don't think about the potential consequences. Or they do, but assume they're clever enough to deal with it. Hubris, it'll kill ya :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously? It might be nostalgia for some degree, but I for one still found the dinosaurs in JP to be really awesome. Very impressive special effects (they look way better than, say, the dinosaurs from the newest Transformers movie), and the movie really has a heart. For me, dinosaurs will always be those Great Lizards.Sort of reminds me about the whole early 20th century Lost World situation.
The very very first Lost World actually did try to have scientifically accurate dinosaurs, and was a major source of inspiration for pretty much every subsequent dinosaur movie until Jurassic Park came around. But unfortunately science marched on, and the dinosaurs became increasingly out of date and inaccurate.
Jurassic Park is released, and also tries to show the "new" view of dinosaurs, and mostly did a good job despite the occasional exaggeration. Unfortunately...again science marches on, but all movies continue to follow the Jurassic Park model for dinosaurs.
Now the JP dinosaurs look just as boring and outdated as the old stop motion dinosaurs, at least IMHO.
It also doesn't help that feathers are more difficult to CGI than "scales".
Jurassic Park was great when first released, as far as the dinosaurs went. They perhaps overcompensated in some ways, but overall it showed dinosaurs as envisioned at the time.
BUT...20 years on and we know a hell of a lot more. Most specifically, we now know with 100% certainty that raptors had feathers and looked completely different from the JP version. Hell, even T. rex might have had some plumage. So it's personally annoying that the director absolutely knows of this, but decided to say hell with it and give us the inaccurate JP versions
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously? It might be nostalgia for some degree, but I for one still found the dinosaurs in JP to be really awesome. Very impressive special effects (they look way better than, say, the dinosaurs from the newest Transformers movie), and the movie really has a heart. For me, dinosaurs will always be those Great Lizards.Sort of reminds me about the whole early 20th century Lost World situation.
The very very first Lost World actually did try to have scientifically accurate dinosaurs, and was a major source of inspiration for pretty much every subsequent dinosaur movie until Jurassic Park came around. But unfortunately science marched on, and the dinosaurs became increasingly out of date and inaccurate.
Jurassic Park is released, and also tries to show the "new" view of dinosaurs, and mostly did a good job despite the occasional exaggeration. Unfortunately...again science marches on, but all movies continue to follow the Jurassic Park model for dinosaurs.
Now the JP dinosaurs look just as boring and outdated as the old stop motion dinosaurs, at least IMHO.
It also doesn't help that feathers are more difficult to CGI than "scales".
Jurassic Park was great when first released, as far as the dinosaurs went. They perhaps overcompensated in some ways, but overall it showed dinosaurs as envisioned at the time.
BUT...20 years on and we know a hell of a lot more. Most specifically, we now know with 100% certainty that raptors had feathers and looked completely different from the JP version. Hell, even T. rex might have had some plumage. So it's personally annoying that the director absolutely knows of this, but decided to say hell with it and give us the inaccurate JP versions
I'd find it weirder if the dinosaurs suddenly looked different between movies in the same continuity. The way I'm looking at it, in the setting of these films, the dinosaurs just happen to look like this. If it was a reboot, then yeah, more accurate dinosaurs would be good. But as it is, I feel this makes more sense in the context.
Seeing Mr. Pratt in a role outside GotG allowed me to realize part of his appeal. He is very much "in the moment" with his acting, allowing him to rather seamlessly fit in with his surroundings. A lot of the great actors specialize in seeming like they are in their minds all the time. Pratt is quickly mastering the opposite to great effect. He genuinely seems part of the world he inhabits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can explain away the feathers with the amphibian DNA they used to plug the gaps from the mosquitoes' lunch. Also because most audiences would look at a feathered raptor and wonder why there were giant turkeys eating people in a dinosaur park.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously? It might be nostalgia for some degree, but I for one still found the dinosaurs in JP to be really awesome. Very impressive special effects (they look way better than, say, the dinosaurs from the newest Transformers movie), and the movie really has a heart. For me, dinosaurs will always be those Great Lizards.Sort of reminds me about the whole early 20th century Lost World situation.
The very very first Lost World actually did try to have scientifically accurate dinosaurs, and was a major source of inspiration for pretty much every subsequent dinosaur movie until Jurassic Park came around. But unfortunately science marched on, and the dinosaurs became increasingly out of date and inaccurate.
Jurassic Park is released, and also tries to show the "new" view of dinosaurs, and mostly did a good job despite the occasional exaggeration. Unfortunately...again science marches on, but all movies continue to follow the Jurassic Park model for dinosaurs.
Now the JP dinosaurs look just as boring and outdated as the old stop motion dinosaurs, at least IMHO.
It also doesn't help that feathers are more difficult to CGI than "scales".
Jurassic Park was great when first released, as far as the dinosaurs went. They perhaps overcompensated in some ways, but overall it showed dinosaurs as envisioned at the time.
BUT...20 years on and we know a hell of a lot more. Most specifically, we now know with 100% certainty that raptors had feathers and looked completely different from the JP version. Hell, even T. rex might have had some plumage. So it's personally annoying that the director absolutely knows of this, but decided to say hell with it and give us the inaccurate JP versions
You are right, I guess. The Star Wars stuff might hvae been great when first released too, but since then we found out there's no sound in space and... well, I haven't quite been able to enjoy the space battles ever since.
;)
So, in the vein of GIANT ANACONDA 4 and GIANT SHARK VS ANGRY HIPPOS 13, when do we get KILLER TURKEY?
Behind the times - ThanksKilling came out in 2009...
Ah, good to know. =)
|
|
Seriously? It might be nostalgia for some degree, but I for one still found the dinosaurs in JP to be really awesome. Very impressive special effects (they look way better than, say, the dinosaurs from the newest Transformers movie), and the movie really has a heart. For me, dinosaurs will always be those Great Lizards.Sort of reminds me about the whole early 20th century Lost World situation.
The very very first Lost World actually did try to have scientifically accurate dinosaurs, and was a major source of inspiration for pretty much every subsequent dinosaur movie until Jurassic Park came around. But unfortunately science marched on, and the dinosaurs became increasingly out of date and inaccurate.
Jurassic Park is released, and also tries to show the "new" view of dinosaurs, and mostly did a good job despite the occasional exaggeration. Unfortunately...again science marches on, but all movies continue to follow the Jurassic Park model for dinosaurs.
Now the JP dinosaurs look just as boring and outdated as the old stop motion dinosaurs, at least IMHO.
It also doesn't help that feathers are more difficult to CGI than "scales".
Jurassic Park was great when first released, as far as the dinosaurs went. They perhaps overcompensated in some ways, but overall it showed dinosaurs as envisioned at the time.
BUT...20 years on and we know a hell of a lot more. Most specifically, we now know with 100% certainty that raptors had feathers and looked completely different from the JP version. Hell, even T. rex might have had some plumage. So it's personally annoying that the director absolutely knows of this, but decided to say hell with it and give us the inaccurate JP versions
You are right, I guess. The Star Wars stuff might hvae been great when first released too, but since then we found out there's no sound in space and... well, I haven't quite been able to enjoy the space battles ever since.
;)
Who say no sound in a space battle. We dont use laser cannons. We use audio carried on a microwave that impacts on the hull and a terrawatt of audible sound cuts through the hull at low frequency and the windows on the enrerprise shatter.
Until it sat down on someone's car.
that was sort of part of a discussion a friend and ours had:
If you are going to genetically engineer a new species of dinosaur, what would be more profitable:
A petite, cute, house-trainable Mini Triceratops.
Or a giant super predator?
Because I am guessing you could make way way more money off of pet-sized dinosaurs than making a new dinosaur to exhibit.
They can explain away the feathers with the amphibian DNA they used to plug the gaps from the mosquitoes' lunch. Also because most audiences would look at a feathered raptor and wonder why there were giant turkeys eating people in a dinosaur park.
Why do people assume that feathers = turkeys? There are ~10,000 species of birds in the world, and most don't look like turkeys. Hawks and eagles are magnificent looking birds, and owls can be downright creepy. Neither group of predators look like turkeys.
I mean a quick google image search will reveal a ton of really cool looking Velociraptor images with feathers. I have trouble envisioning special effects studios not being able to make intimidating raptors.
And at any rate, if rumors are true, the raptors will be heroes of the movie, not villains, so really there isn't need to make them monstrous beasts.
|
|
that was sort of part of a discussion a friend and ours had:
If you are going to genetically engineer a new species of dinosaur, what would be more profitable:
A petite, cute, house-trainable Mini Triceratops.
Or a giant super predator?
Because I am guessing you could make way way more money off of pet-sized dinosaurs than making a new dinosaur to exhibit.
Pretty sure that the same technology that allows one to recreate extinct species will also have a dramatic impact other fields of science - medicine, biological engineering... the world could be changed almost beyond recognition, as far as we know. Yet none of that is even MENTIONED in the movie, is it?
I mean, obviously the Jurassic Park franchise is not about actual speculative science fiction, it's about giant monsters based on real creatures that once lived on Earth. Think about it that way, and your beef with the movies might vanish.
It's like I had a really negative first reaction to XMEN Days of Future past. Took me some months to realize that I was looking at it wrong - it wasn't one of the worst movies ever made because unlike what I assumed, it wasn't made for me - someone who cares for the movie continuity - it was a light action movie with Wolverine and Magneto that was made by and for people who want nothing more than that. It didn't have to make sense, or be a coherent part of any larger story.
The Jurassic Park franchise is much the same.
It's like I had a really negative first reaction to XMEN Days of Future past. Took me some months to realize that I was looking at it wrong - it wasn't one of the worst movies ever made because unlike what I assumed, it wasn't made for me - someone who cares for the movie continuity - it was a light action movie with Wolverine and Magneto that was made by and for people who want nothing more than that. It didn't have to make sense, or be a coherent part of any larger story.
You give it too little credit.
Days of Future Past cared VERY much about the previous movie continuity. Because its entire point, basically, was an excuse to create an entertaining movie while nuking the existing continuity from orbit to erase X-Men 3 from existence.
that was sort of part of a discussion a friend and ours had:
If you are going to genetically engineer a new species of dinosaur, what would be more profitable:
A petite, cute, house-trainable Mini Triceratops.
Or a giant super predator?
Because I am guessing you could make way way more money off of pet-sized dinosaurs than making a new dinosaur to exhibit.
Exactly what I said!
They can explain away the feathers with the amphibian DNA they used to plug the gaps from the mosquitoes' lunch. Also because most audiences would look at a feathered raptor and wonder why there were giant turkeys eating people in a dinosaur park.Why do people assume that feathers = turkeys? There are ~10,000 species of birds in the world, and most don't look like turkeys. Hawks and eagles are magnificent looking birds, and owls can be downright creepy. Neither group of predators look like turkeys.Because it's most Americans' first thought when it comes to large flightless birds. (Though turkeys can fly, they're not often seen doing so.)
A feathered predatory dinosaur isn't going to look like a hawk because it won't fly.
Woah there, I'm a kiwi. I think of flightless birds, I think of.. well, kiwis. Or Moas, if we're talking huge and scary.
I don't personally have a problem with dinosaur plumage, my point was that your average cinema goer still expects dinosaurs to look like giant lizards.
|
|
Days of Future Past cared VERY much about the previous movie continuity. Because its entire point, basically, was an excuse to create an entertaining movie while nuking the existing continuity from orbit to erase X-Men 3 from existence.
An odd decision, then, to include many parts in the movie that reference the third movie, and many other parts that ignore it entirely.
Also, the movie is a continuation of "First Class" which already contradicted the original trilogy on several matters, so there's an ingrained lack of continuity in Days of Future past.
Lastly... as a fan of the original series, I don't see how I'm supposed to care what the hell is going on now, given that everything that happened up till now is erased in a single stroke of screenwriter's care free hand. If a character can be dead in the end of one movie and alive at the beginning of the next one (and that's BEFORE the time travel shenanigans started), then yeah, no event ever means anything ever again.
I dunno. I personally thought First Class and Days of Future Past were the best of all the X-Men movies. The original was good, and 2 was all right, but 3 and Origin: Wolverine were meh, and The Wolverine was a bit better.
I think undoing a pair of meh at best movies, a decent movie, and a pair of good movies is a net gain (if a slight one) if the movies going forward are going to be as good as FC and DoFP.
that was sort of part of a discussion a friend and ours had:
If you are going to genetically engineer a new species of dinosaur, what would be more profitable:
A petite, cute, house-trainable Mini Triceratops.
Or a giant super predator?
Because I am guessing you could make way way more money off of pet-sized dinosaurs than making a new dinosaur to exhibit.
You guys don't go to zoos much do you...the largest crowds are outside the predators cages especially during feeding time.
Also who says they don't have the cute house pets dinosaurs also? In a movie where dino goes on a rampage though...I am guessing those house pet dino would be just a footnote....
Also scientist believe dino had feathers (which has been a theory for a while now...longer than the first Jurassic Park movie at least) but it has not been proven conclusively as of yet...as far as I know.
But even if it is a fact...people don't expect feathers on a dino...so I can completely see the people who run it in the movie decide to have bold dinos because that is what the general population expects.
that was sort of part of a discussion a friend and ours had:
If you are going to genetically engineer a new species of dinosaur, what would be more profitable:
A petite, cute, house-trainable Mini Triceratops.
Or a giant super predator?
Because I am guessing you could make way way more money off of pet-sized dinosaurs than making a new dinosaur to exhibit.
You guys don't go to zoos much do you...the largest crowds are outside the predators cages especially during feeding time.
Also who says they don't have the cute house pets dinosaurs also? In a movie where dino goes on a rampage though...I am guessing those house pet dino would be just a footnote....
Also scientist believe dino had feathers (which has been a theory for a while now...longer than the first Jurassic Park movie at least) but it has not been proven conclusively as of yet...as far as I know.
But even if it is a fact...people don't expect feathers on a dino...so I can completely see the people who run it in the movie decide to have bold dinos because that is what the general population expects.
So true. My ex and I went to the zoo here a few years back for some tour where you get to feed all the animals. It's the predators that people were most excited about, then the cute ones (the otters were pretty damn adorable).
Also scientist believe dino had feathers (which has been a theory for a while now...longer than the first Jurassic Park movie at least) but it has not been proven conclusively as of yet...as far as I know.
But even if it is a fact...people don't expect feathers on a dino...so I can completely see the people who run it in the movie decide to have bold dinos because that is what the general population expects.
At the time of the first movie and book, it was speculation. The only person I know who was pushing it really heavily was Gregory S. Paul, who's well respected but also sort of an outsider in the paleo community. I think people were open to the possibility, but waiting for something definite.
Since then, we actually have definite proof that maniraptoran dinosaurs had feathers, and rather complex ones at that. Even the hardcore critics of the ideas that dinosaurs and birds are related accept feathere dinosaurs, they just think things like Velociraptor are secondarily flightless birds.
At this point we have direct evidence for feathers in Deinonychosaurs (including Velociraptor, who actually has feather attachment points on its arm bones), Oviraptosaurs, Therizinosaurs, Troodontids, Compsognathids, Basal Tyrannosaurs (unclear if the big species like T. rex lost them), I think Ornithomimids, and a hodgepodge of bird like forms. More recently we have evidence of feathers in stem theropods outside of coelurosaurs (still controversial), and good evidence for some sort of feather or hair like pelage in early ornithopods and the ceratopsian lineage. At this point, it is quite possible that feathers evolved before dinosaurs, since pterosaurs also had hair like plumage. Feathers thus might have been on almost any smallish dinosaur, and were later lost in larger critters (much like elephants almost completely lack hair, even though most mammals have it).
So yeah, Velociraptor had feathers, and should be depicted with feathers. Otherwise it isn't velociraptor. I mean wolves might be cooler if they could fly and breath fire, but I wouldn't call anything that did that a wolf.
JP 4 will be a cool monster movie I am sure, but that will be it. It certainly won't rise to the level of the first movie, whose real claim to fame in my circle was bringing the new view of dinosaurs into the public spotlight. I certainly don't see the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists ever awarding the director an honory life time membership, which is what was given to Stephen Spielberg a few years ago at the annual meeting.
Pretty sure that the same technology that allows one to recreate extinct species will also have a dramatic impact other fields of science - medicine, biological engineering... the world could be changed almost beyond recognition, as far as we know. Yet none of that is even MENTIONED in the movie, is it?
I mean, obviously the Jurassic Park franchise is not about actual speculative science fiction, it's about giant monsters based on real creatures that once lived on Earth. Think about it that way, and your beef with the movies might vanish.
The Jurassic Park franchise is much the same.
Oh yeah. I mean I sort of can suspend my belief about how the world at large hasn't changed. Because you are absolutely right...the level of genetic know how needed to pull something like this off is far beyond our current technology. I mean just imagine the most direct application: conservation. if you really could create dinosaurs from dna in that shoddy of condition, anthropogenic extinction would be reversed. Moas, dodos, tree crocs, giant lemurs, thylacines, Baiji...they would all be back.
add in everything else involved (gene therapy for disease, designer bacteria to clean up toxic waste or produce fuel, super-crops, etc) and it would be a very different world.
But I mean that is pretty typical in general of science fiction television and movies, which tend to focus on one gee whiz idea and sort of imagine all other areas of tech and culture haven't changed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also scientist believe dino had feathers (which has been a theory for a while now...longer than the first Jurassic Park movie at least) but it has not been proven conclusively as of yet...as far as I know.
But even if it is a fact...people don't expect feathers on a dino...so I can completely see the people who run it in the movie decide to have bold dinos because that is what the general population expects.
At the time of the first movie and book, it was speculation. The only person I know who was pushing it really heavily was Gregory S. Paul, who's well respected but also sort of an outsider in the paleo community. I think people were open to the possibility, but waiting for something definite.
Since then, we actually have definite proof that maniraptoran dinosaurs had feathers, and rather complex ones at that. Even the hardcore critics of the ideas that dinosaurs and birds are related accept feathere dinosaurs, they just think things like Velociraptor are secondarily flightless birds.
At this point we have direct evidence for feathers in Deinonychosaurs (including Velociraptor, who actually has feather attachment points on its arm bones), Oviraptosaurs, Therizinosaurs, Troodontids, Compsognathids, Basal Tyrannosaurs (unclear if the big species like T. rex lost them), I think Ornithomimids, and a hodgepodge of bird like forms. More recently we have evidence of feathers in stem theropods outside of coelurosaurs (still controversial), and good evidence for some sort of feather or hair like pelage in early ornithopods and the ceratopsian lineage. At this point, it is quite possible that feathers evolved before dinosaurs, since pterosaurs also had hair like plumage. Feathers thus might have been on almost any smallish dinosaur, and were later lost in larger critters (much like elephants almost completely lack hair, even though most mammals have it).
So yeah, Velociraptor had feathers, and should be depicted with feathers. Otherwise it isn't velociraptor. I mean...
Again, it would probably be weirder if the dinos looked completely different between films in the same continuity. How would they explain that? They were cloning them in the first film, meaning they basically came out looking like they did back when they existed naturally. In the context of the setting of the films, it would make no sense for them to suddenly have feathers, no matter how scientifically accurate it is. Like I said, if it was a reboot, then yeah, makes sense and I'd be 100% behind it... but in this case, it's more like these are just an alternate world version of the dinosaurs. They're not going for scientific accuracy, they just want a fun action-adventure film that holds to the spirit of the previous films in the series.
|
|
Again, it would probably be weirder if the dinos looked completely different between films in the same continuity. How would they explain that? They were cloning them in the first film, meaning they basically came out looking like they did back when they existed naturally. In the context of the setting of the films, it would make no sense for them to suddenly have feathers, no matter how scientifically accurate it is. Like I said, if it was a reboot, then yeah, makes sense and I'd be 100% behind it... but in this case, it's more like these are just an alternate world version of the dinosaurs. They're not going for scientific accuracy, they just want a fun action-adventure film that holds to the spirit of the previous films in the series.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I recall the beasties from the first trilogy (and the book) were created by completing broken DNA strands found in amber-frozen mosquitoes... with the DNA of frogs. The way the dinosaurs multiplied out of hand is because even though they were all created female, the frogs that were used could chance their sex and the dinosaurs inherited that super power.
So, you could always just say that the reptilian look is some odd manifestation of the frog genes combined with the dinosaur's ones, and change the look. That's enough science to justify something like this in a movie.
Of course, most people would rather see reptilian dinosaurs than bird-like ones, which is why this isn't happening.
Of course, most people would rather see reptilian dinosaurs than bird-like ones, which is why this isn't happening.
If only they knew what they are missing.
Meh...People recast all the time characters in movies, and audiences deal with it fine. I don't see it much different.
Besides they already changed the look of the raptors for JP3, and are changing them back. I heard lots of complaints about JPS, but a new look for the raptors generally wasn't one.
Hmmm. Maybe I never saw 3. I remember seeing 2 at the cinema back when I was 8, and I've seen the first one and it countless times since then, and I thought I'd seen 3 at least once with a friend, but having just watched the trailer, it's actually not ringing any bells for me. In which case, if they did change the raptors for it, I guess I can see your point. Though I'm one of the people who despite knowing they were feathered now, still imagines them the way I was taught they looked as a kid, sleek and scaly.
Of course, most people would rather see reptilian dinosaurs than bird-like ones, which is why this isn't happening.If only they knew what they are missing.
ARGH! Kill it with fire!