You will believe a shark can roar: Zoological malpractice in Hollywood.

I really hated the ending where they completely ripped off the end of the first X-Files movie. The whole "aliens were archaeologists" plot was ripped off from a "Star Trek" episode.
a Belizean archaeologist is trying to sue the makers of the last Indiana Jones movie in "one of the most entertaining lawsuits of the year" because they used a likeness of the crystal skull without permission.....
Belize archeologist sues 'Indiana Jones' makers over Crystal Skull - Entertainment - NZ Herald News
8 December 2012

A Belize archeologist is suing the makers of a blockbuster 'Indiana Jones' film for using a likeness of a so-called Crystal Skull, which he says is a stolen national treasure.

Dr. Jaime Awe claims the skull was stolen from Belize 88 years ago, and that filmmakers had no right to use a model of it in 2008`s 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,' according to the Hollywood Reporter.

In a lawsuit filed in Illinois this week, Awe is demanding the return of the Crystal Skull, which he says is a national treasure, from a treasure-hunting family who allegedly stole it, said the industry journal Friday.

But the legal action also targets Lucasfilm, its new owner the Walt Disney Co. and Paramount Pictures which released the film by Steven Spielberg, for allegedly using a replica 'likeness' of the skull.

Awe, head of the Institute of Archeology of Belize, claims that the skull was found by the daughter of an adventurer named F.A. Mitchell-Hedges under a collapsed altar in temple ruins in Belize, and taken to the US in 1930.

The family is said to have made money exhibiting the skull, described as 5 inches high, 7 inches long and 5 inches wide, which Awe says was used as a model for the Indiana Jones movie.

"LucasFilm never sought, nor was given permission to utilize the Mitchell-Hedges Skull or its likeness in the film,'' says the lawsuit, a copy of which was published by the Hollywood Reporter.

"To date, Belize has not participated in any of the profits derived from the sale of the film or the rights thereto,'' it added. The movie grossed about $786 million worldwide.

The skull is one of four valuable Crystal skulls seized from Belize - the others are on display in London, Paris and Washington.

"Belize was .. an epicentre for nineteenth and early twentieth-century treasure hunters plundering the nation's Maya ruins under the guise of `archaeology','' said the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is seeking the return of the original skull, which it describes as the 'most notable' of the four. It added that Belize has a 'right, title and interest in and to the Mitchell-Hedges Skull and its likeness.'

The Hollywood Reporter described Awe as a "real-life Indiana Jones," and his legal action as "one of the most entertaining lawsuits of the year.''

Neither Lucasfilm - which its founder and "Star Wars'' creator George Lucas sold to Disney in October for over $4 billion - nor Paramount reacted immediately to news of the lawsuit.
 
Did you hear that he sold out to Disney and now they're going to make more Star Wars movies. Seesh:rolleyes: When are they going to stop milking that cow. The Star Wars animals were cool, though.

And the world became even sadder than they it was already.
 

Attachments

  • George Lucas Sucks.jpg
    George Lucas Sucks.jpg
    40.9 KB · Views: 15
I watched life of pi today and in the opening scene they show a live asian elephant in the background and another elephant in the foreground, but the front elephant is a CGI and looks like a mix between an African and Asian elephant. It has large ears and tusks like an African and a body like and Asian. Why can't the movie makers just pick one species!
In the beginning there is an exhibit in the zoo home to a giraffe and a fox together! That was really strange to me. Also the scene with thousands of flying fish seemed very unrealistic.
 
And the world became even sadder than they it was already.

I'm reserving judgement on this Disney Lucasfilm purchase. If they actually make some decent Star Wars movies then it will be a good thing. It would be hard to make things worse than Uncle George did already with the prequels.
 
I'm reserving judgement on this Disney Lucasfilm purchase. If they actually make some decent Star Wars movies then it will be a good thing. It would be hard to make things worse than Uncle George did already with the prequels.

Don't forget about the animated movie and the cartoon series.
 
Ice Age and The Land Before Time both have animals from different locations and time periods in one location.

The Land Before Time is kind of rediculous while there are Dinosaurs in Ice Age (and Dodos). Do all of Ice Age's animals really exist? What are those wierd horned beaver things called. Also, I don't think there were ever any species of prehistoric, arctic piranha.


Ah, Scrat:)

Besides for the previously mentioned capuchin thing, Night at the Museum has an albino Burmese Python in the Hall of African Mammals.
 
In the TV series Rome, which was set in the time of Julius Caesar, one of the homes had a white cockatoo as a pet.

I don't think that the Romans traded that far East, but I suppose that a bird that lives for a hundred years could have passed hands westward over time....
 
The Land Before Time is kind of rediculous while there are Dinosaurs in Ice Age (and Dodos). Do all of Ice Age's animals really exist? What are those wierd horned beaver things called. Also, I don't think there were ever any species of prehistoric, arctic piranha.
the mammals in the Ice Age movies are all real (well, not Scrat; and the ground sloths are so modified they don't even look like ground sloths any more). The artists acquainted themselves with the species at various museums etc. They didn't worry about biogeography or time periods so much though (e.g. the brontotheres were extinct many millions of years before the movies were set).

The "horned beaver things" are horned beavers -- there's a cool photo of a skeleton here: [ame="http://www.flickr.com/photos/17903031@N00/6854988441/"]Epigaulus - A Horned Rodent related to today's Mountain Beaver - National Museum of Natural History - Washington DC 2012 (177)A | Flickr - Photo Sharing![/ame] They weren't true beavers but who's complaining. They were also extinct well before the movie date.

(You'll have to click on the link to see the photo. Some weird setting on Zoochat for Flickr photos!)
 
I wasn't happy with misinformation in the recent series of programmes celebrating 60 years of David Attenborough. The first programme implied that solenodons probably inherited their venomous saliva from their reptile ancestors. While I accept that solenodons are primitive mammals, no mammals evolved from reptiles. The ancestors of mammals separated from their amniote ancestors before the ancestors of reptiles did. While this would be too technical for many viewers, David Attenborough shouldn't have said that reptiles were the ancestors of mammals. Also, if the venomous bites of solenodons are inherited from primitive ancestors, what is the case with the slow loris?

The other problem was in the second programme. David Attenborough mentioned dinosaurs and showed a picture of a Dimetrodon. He then said it was a dinosaur, which it wasn't. Dimetrodon was related to the early ancestors of mammals and had nothing to do with dinosaurs. It became extinct before the dinosaurs evolved.

Once again, a good example of why proof-readers are needed for TV programmes, books, magazines etc.
 
IThe first programme implied that solenodons probably inherited their venomous saliva from their reptile ancestors. While I accept that solenodons are primitive mammals, no mammals evolved from reptiles. The ancestors of mammals separated from their amniote ancestors before the ancestors of reptiles did.

So ancestors of mammals had amniotic ancestors who were neither amphibia nor reptiles. Who they were then?

What does the word "reptile" mean?
 
Hello Callorhinus

I'm sorry for the technical terms. Basically amniotes were descendants of reptiliomorph amphibians about 340 million years ago. Amniotes laid shelled eggs, which enabled them to survive on land without returning to the water to lay their eggs, as do most amphibians. The first descendants of early amniotes to split off from the main group were the synapsids. These included the ancestors of mammals. The second group to split off from the early amniotes were the sauropsids, which were the ancestors of reptiles and birds. The basic details are in [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniote]Amniote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]. The synapsids and sauropsids have been placed in distinct classes, so reptiles were not ancestral to mammals. Similarly, the sauropsids include the extinct mesosaurs, as well as reptiles.

I hope this makes sense, but it does mean that the term 'mammal-like reptile' is misleading and the term 'synapsid' is more correct.
 
Hello Callorhinus

I'm sorry for the technical terms.

Don't worry about it, I am biologist. I just want to clear situation as English is not my native language.

The synapsids and sauropsids have been placed in distinct classes, so reptiles were not ancestral to mammals. Similarly, the sauropsids include the extinct mesosaurs, as well as reptiles.

I hope this makes sense, but it does mean that the term 'mammal-like reptile' is misleading and the term 'synapsid' is more correct.

And "synapsid reptiles" is a common phrase too.

Any dispute is a dispute about terms :)
 
the mammals in the Ice Age movies are all real (well, not Scrat; and the ground sloths are so modified they don't even look like ground sloths any more). The artists acquainted themselves with the species at various museums etc. They didn't worry about biogeography or time periods so much though (e.g. the brontotheres were extinct many millions of years before the movies were set).

The "horned beaver things" are horned beavers -- there's a cool photo of a skeleton here: Epigaulus - A Horned Rodent related to today's Mountain Beaver - National Museum of Natural History - Washington DC 2012 (177)A | Flickr - Photo Sharing! They weren't true beavers but who's complaining. They were also extinct well before the movie date.

(You'll have to click on the link to see the photo. Some weird setting on Zoochat for Flickr photos!)

There actually is an Extinct animal from Argentina that is said to be Scrat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronopio_(mammal)
 
interesting. It would require the species to have survived for over 90 million years and migrated a very long way, but I guess it's possible.

Well apparently they originally made Scrat a comical, fantasy creature and it was just coincidence that the animal really existed. The species was only discovered last year (2011).
 
Well apparently they originally made Scrat a comical, fantasy creature and it was just coincidence that the animal really existed. The species was only discovered last year (2011).
yes, it said that on the Wikipedia link, which I didn't skim-read. However it was actually discovered in 2006, which it didn't say on the Wikipedia link.
 
Has anyone ever seen "The Pebble and the Penguin"? I love that movie!!! But there is one problem- the Penguins are seen wearing clothes; for example the main character, Hubie, wears a yellow scarf and a red hat. Where did they got those clothes?
 
Has anyone ever seen "The Pebble and the Penguin"? I love that movie!!! But there is one problem- the Penguins are seen wearing clothes; for example the main character, Hubie, wears a yellow scarf and a red hat. Where did they got those clothes?
it is an animated movie with anthropomorphised characters. Them wearing clothes is not a zoological innaccuracy any more than Mickey Mouse wearing clothes and speaking human languages is.

Speaking of which, why is that Donald Duck doesn't wear any pants, but when he comes out of a shower or bath he wraps a towel around his waist?
 
Back
Top