Jurassic world

Elephas Maximus said:
Btw bald raptors suck.
Click to expand...

Who cares ? You don't have to watch the movie, if you don't like naked dinosaurs-btw-featherd t-rex look like giant turkeys, so I prefer the naked ones;) It is HOLLYWOOD and not a dokumentary, don't forget that fact!Btw-cars can't not EXLODE, but you can see that in almost every movie-exploding cars sucks:DAnd White sharsk don't eat Humans-they never did, but you can see that in Jaws...that sucks, too;)
 
Bib Fortuna said:
Who cares ? You don't have to watch the movie, if you don't like naked dinosaurs-btw-featherd t-rex look like giant turkeys, so I prefer the naked ones;) It is HOLLYWOOD and not a dokumentary, don't forget that fact!Btw-cars can't not EXLODE, but you can see that in almost every movie-exploding cars sucks:DAnd White sharsk don't eat Humans-they never did, but you can see that in Jaws...that sucks, too;)
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to agree - it is a movie not a doco. I'm quite keen to see it actually, I thought the trailer looked pretty awesome, although the idea of hybridising dinos seems bizarre - surely dinosaurs by themselves are amazing enough attractions?
 
Elephas Maximus said:
Pliosaurs are not Dinos :p
Click to expand...

By the way...it is a Mossaurus:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/baptistecoudert/14643558994/

His exhibit loks awesome-reminds me of the Underwater tunnel of the Ocean Voyager exhibit at the GA-whalesharks might be the better prey for that kind of beast.An adult orca male needs uo to 160-80 kg of fish each day, so
to keep Mosasuarus and all the other dinos, is indeed a very expensive pleasure. :D Iask me, how much is the entree fee for Jurassic World ?
 
Bib Fortuna said:
btw-featherd t-rex look like giant turkeys,
Click to expand...

Depends on the artist:
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/198/c/2/turkey_rex_xd_by_nebezial-d57k63e.jpg
http://dinosaurian-age.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/6/6/23660276/5359304_orig.jpg

Some of today's living Maniraptora specimens exemplify why having feathers doesn't equal harmlessness...
http://memecrunch.com/meme/2IOKD/cassowary/image.png?w=400&c=1

As for scientific accuracy in mainstream movies: yes, the discussion is a prime example of beating a very dead horse. However, if we depreciate and downgrade any scientific accuracy at all, then why not have the dinosaurs talk in, say, American street-slang and comment crudely about Bryce Dallas Howard's feminity (I'm looking at you, Michael Bay)?

I think that it wouldn't have been too difficult to integrate a more updated appearance of (feathered) dinosaurs without losing any horror effect. The discrepancy of looks in regard to the other movies could have been explained by abolishing the implementation of amphibian DNA in the newer versions of the dinosaurs.

As for legal accuracy ;) :
http://deepseanews.com/2014/11/is-jurrasic-world-violating-cites-protections/
 
zooboy28 said:
I'm inclined to agree - it is a movie not a doco. I'm quite keen to see it actually, I thought the trailer looked pretty awesome, although the idea of hybridising dinos seems bizarre - surely dinosaurs by themselves are amazing enough attractions?
Click to expand...

Not in the time, zoos with living dinsoaurs are possible-so tehy getting boring, after people went two or three time sto the island...

I'm looking foward the warning of the Mosasaurs keepers at the beginning of the show:"The first 50 Rows getting surly wet"

I ask me, if is it allowd to the Mosasaurs keepers to go into the water with their "Pet"?:D And if a new documentary comes out,against Mosasaurs in captivity": "Prehistoric fish-Never capture what can swallow you!":D
 
Batto said:
Depends on the artist:
http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/198/c/2/turkey_rex_xd_by_nebezial-d57k63e.jpg
http://dinosaurian-age.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/6/6/23660276/5359304_orig.jpg

Some of today's living Maniraptora specimens exemplify why having feathers doesn't equal harmlessness...
http://memecrunch.com/meme/2IOKD/cassowary/image.png?w=400&c=1

As for scientific accuracy in mainstream movies: yes, the discussion is a prime example of beating a very dead horse. However, if we depreciate and downgrade any scientific accuracy at all, then why not have the dinosaurs talk in, say, American street-slang and comment crudely about Bryce Dallas Howard's feminity (I'm looking at you, Michael Bay)?

I think that it wouldn't have been too difficult to integrate a more updated appearance of (feathered) dinosaurs without losing any horror effect. The discrepancy of looks in regard to the other movies could have been explained by abolishing the implementation of amphibian DNA in the newer versions of the dinosaurs.

As for legal accuracy ;) :
Is Jurrasic World Violating CITES Protections? | Deep Sea News
Click to expand...

Okay,Okay-a very large turkey with big teeth:)Yo'ure right,also ostriches and cassowarys are very effective killers, terrible creaturs, which have killed humans...I'm still waiting for a new animal horor movie with them...instead of sharks, piranias, spiders, bears...
 
My reaction to the trailer is... Eh. The only thing that has me interested is the guy riding a motorcycle with trained raptors. But the rest doesn't seem all that different from the rest of the Jurassic Park films, and the designs of the dinos are incredibly generic.

Personally I don't get why people think dinos with feathers can't be scary. You know what other animals are fluffy? Bears and tigers, but they're plenty scary. Large birds of prey can be pretty scary, and the cassowary is well known to be dangerous.
 
I find it odd that the filmakers havent gone down the Biosyn/Lewis Dodgson route as an InGen rival rather than create a whole new company (Masrani). That would have, at least, represented a continuation of a seed planted in JP1.
 
TheMightyOrca said:
My reaction to the trailer is... Eh. The only thing that has me interested is the guy riding a motorcycle with trained raptors. But the rest doesn't seem all that different from the rest of the Jurassic Park films, and the designs of the dinos are incredibly generic.

Personally I don't get why people think dinos with feathers can't be scary. You know what other animals are fluffy? Bears and tigers, but they're plenty scary. Large birds of prey can be pretty scary, and the cassowary is well known to be dangerous.
Click to expand...

The no dinos with feathers thing comes from the whole point of the books/movies. The "dinosaurs" that inhabit the parks aren't meant to be realistic they are meant to be what people expect. As Alan Grant said "they are genetically engineered theme park monsters". So this hybrid is just the next step.
 
tschandler71 said:
The no dinos with feathers thing comes from the whole point of the books/movies. The "dinosaurs" that inhabit the parks aren't meant to be realistic they are meant to be what people expect. As Alan Grant said "they are genetically engineered theme park monsters". So this hybrid is just the next step.
Click to expand...

But the first movie presented dinosaurs in a way that the general public wasn't used to seeing, and that's what was so cool about it. I've only seen the movies, so I go off what's there, but the park was intended to be educational. There was no mention of altering dinosaurs to make them more like what people want. Now, I won't be surprised if JW uses that explanation, considering that this park is trying to make new dinos. But it's still disappointing. It doesn't look like this movie is showing anything new outside of trained raptors. A lot of the dinos are the same ones we've seen in the previous films, and again, the designs are really generic. The use of the trained raptors shows that they're obviously not THAT averse to change.
 
Irrfan Khan confirmed that there were four animatronics made for the film, two Velociraptors (there should be four), an apatosaurus head, and an Indominus Rex. It was not specified whether the I Rex is full bodied, or if just a torso was made. Forgetting all that, I'm just hoping that a Tyrannosaur animatronic will be used.
 
I see from the brochure they released that the small pterosaur Dimorphodon is included among the species. I wonder if/how they will work that into the plot.

Originally they were talking about doing an entirely new threat- a swarm of tiny blood-sucking pterosaurs were one of the ideas thrown around. I guess they decided that wouldn't be cool enough, so instead they made another generic meat-eating dino... only this time, IT'S A HYBRID.
 
Coelacanth18 said:
Originally they were talking about doing an entirely new threat- a swarm of tiny blood-sucking pterosaurs were one of the ideas thrown around. I guess they decided that wouldn't be cool enough (...).
Click to expand...

Or because they realized it would have been a clear rip-off of the Anurognathus episode of BBC's "Primeval".
 
TheMightyOrca said:
There was no mention of altering dinosaurs to make them more like what people want.
Click to expand...
Not in the movies, but in the first book. Henry Wu tries to talk John Hammond into allowing him to create more docile, slower dinosaurs that are more appealing to the visitors and easier to control. Hammond scoffs at this, believing the audience to prefer real dinosaurs (which, as Wu points out, the current modified versions are neither).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top