What do you want to see in Jurassic World: Dominion?

Thomas said:
Oviraptor was an omnivore, so it is a bit plausible and modern-day birds like jays and crows raid bird's nests today
Click to expand...
Yet we do not portray corvids solely focused on this one single feature...

Thomas said:
What are your opinions on the dinosaur designs like non-pronated dinosaurs and feathered?
Click to expand...
Dreadfully boring, uninspired and unoriginal. It's 2021 and yet there's little difference between these CGI dinosaurs and those of WwD or (shudder) Disney's Dinosaur. It's as if All Yesterdays, the Anti-Shrink Wrap look movement, Luis Rey and all those other out-of-the-box modern paleoartists never existed. Give me fat humps, combs, crests, trunks... and a greater color range than that greyish - brownish, wrinkled elephant skin sadness. It doesn't have to be on the gaudy childish level of Dino Dan / Dana, but even WwD almost 20 years ago was more willing to acknowledge them to be more colorful and "freaky".
The protofeathers of the T. Rex are a weak attempt to please both the feather and the scale fanboys, which is even more so apparent in the overly scaly "old school" design of its opponent.
 
Last edited:
As a long time fan of the series since my childhood in the 90’s, this prologue had some things I liked but it felt rather disjointed due to the species used for it despite it taking place presumably in North America approximately 65 million years ago.

First and foremost, the the Giganotosaurus is just a kaiju monster for the sake of looking different than the T.Rex. I get it, they needed to make a threat for the franchise star. They even had a somewhat outdated representation of the Giganotosaurus in their recent video games of Jurassic World Evolution 1 and 2, even with its faults it still has a resemblance of its actual counterpart. But why not use another pop culture image that has been solely speculation at best yet way more plausible than what we saw: Triceratops vs T.Rex. We haven’t seen that encounter in any of the films despite both being iconic dinosaurs of the same time period and place. That way their can be an excuse for the mosquito to acquire blood from the fallen tyrant lizard if they chose to do so still.

Secondly, why use dinosaurs of different eras and places in this prologue? They could’ve used Dakotaraptor, Edmontosaurus, or Anzu as some animals in the same regions the T.Rex reigned in. What irked me is that Colin Trevorrow kept indicating that the prologue was going to show off the dinosaurs as they were yet it felt like the piece in Fantasia, a fantastical representation at best.

All that said, I still have been a fan of the franchise despite its many inaccuracies. It’s just entertainment for the masses and keeping the same aesthetics of their dinosaurs to perhaps not ward people off. I am part of that mass albeit somewhat larger than most :D The nostalgia for me draws me in each time, the same nostalgia that triggered my fascination and love for animals and paleontology.
 
As much as the prologue is wrong one thing I loved was the large herd of the Nasutoceratops we see a young calf greet its mother and what seems to be the calf's father redirect it to walk forward with the rest of the herd, on the right we see two members of the herd which where wallowing in the river which I absolutely love
 
Batto said:
Dreadfully boring, uninspired and unoriginal. It's 2021 and yet there's little difference between these CGI dinosaurs and those of WwD or (shudder) Disney's Dinosaur. It's as if All Yesterdays, the Anti-Shrink Wrap look movement, Luis Rey and all those other out-of-the-box modern paleoartists never existed. Give me fat humps, combs, crests, trunks... and a greater color range than that greyish - brownish, wrinkled elephant skin sadness. It doesn't have to be on the gaudy childish level of Dino Dan / Dana, but even WwD almost 20 years ago was more willing to acknowledge them to be more colorful and "freaky".
The protofeathers of the T. Rex are a weak attempt to please both the feather and the scale fanboys, which is even more so apparent in the overly scaly "old school" design of its opponent.
Click to expand...
I do not want to argue with you (I have seen the fate of those who do and heed their warning) While I agree on the front of the feather dilema (it should’ve either been fully with or without feathers) and the scientific accuracy issue, the dinosaurs do have a few brighter colours that weren’t visible due to the lighting. However the point of them looking rather archetypal and uninspired anatomy-wise does still stand.F925C1E4-ADA2-4C40-9A42-8572AF1225E0.jpeg9C32E711-18CD-4269-A8F7-835E2B7E54F9.jpeg FF0E5E7E-504A-4D62-9D38-BA5B6C8495B0.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • F925C1E4-ADA2-4C40-9A42-8572AF1225E0.jpeg
    F925C1E4-ADA2-4C40-9A42-8572AF1225E0.jpeg
    82.7 KB · Views: 21
  • 9C32E711-18CD-4269-A8F7-835E2B7E54F9.jpeg
    9C32E711-18CD-4269-A8F7-835E2B7E54F9.jpeg
    77.2 KB · Views: 20
  • FF0E5E7E-504A-4D62-9D38-BA5B6C8495B0.jpeg
    FF0E5E7E-504A-4D62-9D38-BA5B6C8495B0.jpeg
    86.3 KB · Views: 20
Randomname0183 said:
I do not want to argue with you (I have seen the fate of those who do and heed their warning) While I agree on the front of the feather dilema (it should’ve either been fully with or without feathers) and the scientific accuracy issue, the dinosaurs do have a few brighter colours that weren’t visible due to the lighting. However the point of them looking rather archetypal and uninspired anatomy-wise does still stand.View attachment 519420View attachment 519421 View attachment 519422
Click to expand...
Yeah the Tyrannosaurus should not have had feathers (at this points it’s widely agreed to have been a sort of camouflage on infants, similar to the spots on deer fawn), and the scene would have looked much better and more realistic without the filter.
 
Rewatched the prologue in its 4K format and the patterns on the dinosaurs are a bit more noticeable on some of the dinosaurs. What I don't get is why not show off vibrant colors?

I get that when the original Jurassic Park had come out, it was new groundbreaking technology where it took hours and databanks to render footage so perhaps having data for vibrant colors wasn’t feasible at the time.

We see a somewhat better lighting situation to showcase their dinosaurs in this prologue but they choose to film from the shaded side to hide their patterns and colors, what is the point in even bothering to make patterns or colors at all that only get washed out by the sun or obscured by shadows? The previous JW films had that odd blue color grading that became more obvious during the jungle or night time scenes.

I don’t get what is wrong with showing off dinosaurs with some colorful patterns, after all they’re related to modern day birds which are a plethora of color tones and hues :oops: I say all of this with love of this franchise that is partially responsible for making me who I am today. Although I criticize it, I just want to see a fun summer blockbuster with my family and enjoy the time out at the movies!
 
Julio C Castro said:
Rewatched the prologue in its 4K format and the patterns on the dinosaurs are a bit more noticeable on some of the dinosaurs. What I don't get is why not show off vibrant colors?

I get that when the original Jurassic Park had come out, it was new groundbreaking technology where it took hours and databanks to render footage so perhaps having data for vibrant colors wasn’t feasible at the time.

We see a somewhat better lighting situation to showcase their dinosaurs in this prologue but they choose to film from the shaded side to hide their patterns and colors, what is the point in even bothering to make patterns or colors at all that only get washed out by the sun or obscured by shadows? The previous JW films had that odd blue color grading that became more obvious during the jungle or night time scenes.

I don’t get what is wrong with showing off dinosaurs with some colorful patterns, after all they’re related to modern day birds which are a plethora of color tones and hues :oops: I say all of this with love of this franchise that is partially responsible for making me who I am today. Although I criticize it, I just want to see a fun summer blockbuster with my family and enjoy the time out at the movies!
Click to expand...
=>
Batto said:
... and a greater color range than that greyish - brownish, wrinkled elephant skin sadness. It doesn't have to be on the gaudy childish level of Dino Dan / Dana, but even WwD almost 20 years ago was more willing to acknowledge them to be more colorful and "freaky".
Click to expand...
@Randomname0183 correctly pointed out it looks better when you increase the lighting, but still...
 
Wow I just saw it that now and it actually shows off their colors, holy **** the exposure had to be cranked up to see those colors/patterns! :eek:
 
Batto said:
All nostalgia and fun easy entertainment aside - I hope the money saved on dinosaur colors was invested in better writers and acting coachs...
Click to expand...
Especially after that last entry, the “twist” in it was rather weird at best and mind numbing at its worst.
 
Julio C Castro said:
Especially after that last entry, the “twist” in it was rather weird at best and mind numbing at its worst.
Click to expand...
Everything following the 1993 original was a setback in terms of storytelling, acting and effects. Putting the nostalgia goggles (not the NVG ^^) aside for a while, even the original JP movie didn't make a lot of sense for various reasons. And it permanently installed misconceptions about dinosaurs in the public that to this day make paleontologists cringe...
 
I believe the saying I’ve heard that echos much of what you say about the first one is “Often imitated, never surpassed”. It certainly by today’s understanding and even during the original film’s release, it created a whole slew of dinosaur myths or misconceptions for sure which I’ve seen the Paleo community roll their eyes hard on social media haha Now with the modern JW films, some very impressionable kids and adults will say their favorite dinosaur is the Indominus Rex which can be cringe and just hope they mean within terms of the film o_O
 
Last edited:
Julio C Castro said:
I believe the saying I’ve heard that echos much of what you say about the first one is “Often imitated, never surpassed”. It certainly by today’s understanding and even during the original film’s release, it created a whole slew of dinosaur myths or misconceptions for sure which I’ve seen the Paleo community roll their eyes hard on social media haha Now with the modern JW films, some very impressionable kids and adults will say their favorite dinosaur is the Indominus Rex which can be cringe and just hope they mean within terms of the film o_O
Click to expand...
People think the Indominus Rex is real; the movie seemed to make it clear that it was a hybrid doesn’t that seem to show that it’s fictional?
 
ChIkEn NuGrEt said:
People think the Indominus Rex is real; the movie seemed to make it clear that it was a hybrid doesn’t that seem to show that it’s fictional?
Click to expand...
Let me guess there confusing it with the Carcharodontosauridae family relatives of the Allosauridae
 
ChIkEn NuGrEt said:
People think the Indominus Rex is real; the movie seemed to make it clear that it was a hybrid doesn’t that seem to show that it’s fictional?
Click to expand...
It hasn’t been that many kids or adults I’ve ran into that actually believe it was an actual animal but the few that I have encounter were bummed out to find out it’s fictional haha I just hope that this new film doesn’t touch upon hybrid dinosaur species, the world of dinosaurs has so many interesting species including some that can be threat to the protagonists or just introduced to new species hopefully sparking their wonder for science and/or paleontology in general :)
 
ChIkEn NuGrEt said:
People think the Indominus Rex is real; the movie seemed to make it clear that it was a hybrid doesn’t that seem to show that it’s fictional?
Click to expand...
Some people also thought and still maintain that Animal Planet's fake mermaid or megalodon "documentaries" were real. The average knowledge of many people regarding natural sciences, including paleontology, is rather, well, shallow. "Facts" presented in movies, even in clearly fictional settings, are often accepted at face value. Another reason why I think that the "Let's keep it just dumb and entertaining" approach of Hollywood isn't very helpful. And no, that doesn't mean that I only want to watch dreadfully boring factual documentaries. However, the JW films in particular have become so incredibly dumb and cartoonish that watching them causes physical pain due to constant face-palming. People are dumb enough; no need to make them even dumber.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top