Just saying if they remade Walking With Dinosaurs with this quality of VFX and thee updated modern accuracy it could potentially be one of the greatest pieces of dinosaur media of all time
Well, I’d have thought it was obvious why Rexy doesn’t have feathers/fur, she’s not a ‘pure’ Rex, none of the cloned animals are ‘pure’, since Wu had to mix in other DNA samples to get viable genomes, that was established in the first book.
Current research that I'm aware of state that t-rex didn't have feathers. Smaller Asian tyrannosaurs had them, but skin impressions of the rex don't show any feathers or the skin structures associated with them. Maybe they had them as juveniles, but adults didn't.
@@misatokitty76 Do you have a source for this? all the research ive seen over the past few years suggest that the t-rex had "fluff" around the neck area at least
To be fair, when he was talking about the DNA in the mosquito, I'm pretty sure in the original novel they address this by saying they don't know which dinosaur they're making until it's created.
And in the 2nd novel they explained further that for each successfully cloned dinosaur, there were hundreds of attempts that never made it out of the egg, or were sickly, disfigured, etc.
'This is a scared animal that doesn't know what's going on' is not the sort of thing you expect somebody to say about a dinosaur attacking people but he's absolutely right.
They briefly mentioned in Jurassic world that they engineered the dinosaurs to look like what they think it should look like. Aka more teeth. It was a cool way to still have the dinosaurs look like they have for years and still acknowledge they aren’t technically accurate
@@thewizardspipe4265 He was referring to 10:15 when the expert was comparing the shots of the feathery dino to the one that is loose in the present day....
Despite all of the inaccuracies and such, the prologue was honestly fantastic! There was definitely some animal/palaeontologist experts working with the film crew for this one.
Hm yes the paleontologists that never bothered to mention the grass that was there ten million years before it was supposed to evolve. Which paleontologist there came up with that horrid Giganotosaurus design?
@@lordshotgun7168 This seems like something very easy to avoid and that anyone can do simple research on. I'm sure they had paleontologists helping them, but they made it clear they wanted to have some artistic freedom.
To be fair, they seem to aknowledge the inaccuracies several times. Jurassic World, Henry Wu stated that if the DNA they found was more pure, a lot of the dinosaurs would look very different. In Jurassic Park 3, Alan Grant stated they were "theme park monsters."
Yeah. It seems that Jurassic World and (probably) Jurassic park changed the dinosaurs' DNA to make them more scary and to draw in more tourists. Well, that idea backfired.
except this is set when the real Dinos were around and since the in canon real Dinos look rather similar to the clones it mean they were not that inaccurate, making a huge contradiction in the writing
@@caelincoolz5814 no, they had to use other animals DNA so they could be complete, not because of other reasons, it is stated already in the first movie
Now I'm not saying I've seen a Giganotosaur before, but looking between the fossil rebuilds and the paleoart for Gigas, *that* sure doesn't look like a Giga. It *does* look like an Acrocanthosaurus, though, and while that's removed even further from Trex by many more millions of years, it'd be cool to see Acro get some big screen love
I’m so glad that the first thing that was shown in the video is the fact that these creatures are separated by tens of millions of years. That was also my biggest problem with the prologue. It’s nice to here the real science behind dinosaurs even though it’s easy to forget how much time actually divides their time of reign.
Nah, they weren't scared to deviate, its just in JP and other JW movies, they used frog dna instead of bird dna to fill gaps getting rid of the feathers. Also the JP3 T-rex is a different T-Rex than this one.
The frog DNA bit is an explanation they came up with after the fact. Granted, it does come from the original novel but when the first movie was made no one thought "we gotta make the dinosaurs look a little different from their irl counterparts because of the frog DNA". It was always "what would look cool". At this point Universal doesn't want to change the designs purely for marketing reasons. These dinosaurs are established characters and a drastic change in design propably wouldn't go down too well with most fans of the franchise. They put Wu's line in JW where he says "they never looked like the real animals" or sth like that, because of how many people complain that they should go with the times and make more accurate designs.
@@knaltor Exactly, it's never stated that the frog DNA is there to fill for their gaps that would affect their phenotype (aka how they look). In the book or movie it only had reproductive effects. They just keep the same designs because they make their money by repeating what people already know. It's more secure to make your profits on an established audience's preferences. Otherwise if you have "DNA gap filling technology", even if you had missing DNA that correspond with the look of the animals, they might just as well fill them with DNA that would result in a more accurate dinosaur if they wanted to go that route, or just dig up more DNA samples until you get a complete genome like in them video games.
@@mitkoogrozev Was it not? The whole plot point of the frog DNA leading to reproduction was an unintended consequence, I'm pretty sure in the original book the frog DNA was used to fill in the missing gaps. And finding enough fossils of the same animal to get a complete genome would be VERY difficult, depending on the animal.
@@kenjutsukata1o1 I'm not aware of the DNA frog filling to explain anything BUT the reproduction. They never stated in the originals that the gaps are so extensive that it will change the appearance of the animal. And since it's not stated explicitly , in the latest Jurassic World movies they used it as an 'excuse' to not update the design. It's more safe and sure that a big franchise will be profitable again , if you don't introduce such big visual changes. So they went "heey, the since there's DNA filling we can use it to explain away our not-updated design!" But DNA editing tech would allow you to go in both directions . If they weren't scared of losing money, they might as well use the same explanation of DNA filling , to fill it with the DNA of various modern animals ( like they did in Jurassic world and said that they've used cuttlefish genes, among other animals for the Indominus), to fill the genome in such a way, that it matches closer the appearance of real dinosaurs, at least as we understand how dinosaur looked now. We'll never know exactly how they actually looked, but we're getting closer with more and more evidence.
In Jurassic world movie only Henry Wu explained that these dinosaurs were not genetically pure ,they were always mixed with frog DNA so they looked quite different than prehistoric dinos
the frog DNA thing never really made sense to me, yes ik its for plot reasons, but genetically speaking crocodilians and birds are closer related, as both are archosaurs, yet even mammals are closer related to dinosaurs than dinosaurs are to amphibians :/
@@Jebiwibiwabo in the novel they used several different animal DNA to fill in gene-gaps not just frog. and they tested and retried until they got a result they were happy with- ie viable birth, looked right, and slow/docile enough to manage in a park setting (theres a part where Muldoon was complaining that even the large animals were still much to fast for him to handle in an emergency)
It really baffles me that they keep making the the most iconic dinosaur of their franchise lose every single fight with other big carnivores, like come on, it’s the most iconic dinosaur of your franchise, give it some love ffs!
@@singmysin yeah and the same can be said about the spino and the giga so arguing “well it was only at the top of the food chain in its era” and assuming therefore it would lose against other apex predators of other eras it’s not really a valid justification or conclusion. The fact is tried could have win any of those fight just as easily as lose them and what I’m upset about is not that it lost once or twice, but that it has lost EVERY SINGLE FIGHT.
@@singmysin That doesn’t make any sense both of these animals were specialize in different things and if they were to fight it would be extremely close it wouldn’t be one-sided…
Thought, in very recent years, general paleontological thinking had reverted back to T-rex Not having feathers? So, possibly the prologue Rex is now inaccurate, ironically.
T.rex could very well still have feathers as it's ancestral group were feathered, but the feathers would be restricted to the top half of the body and would probably be small and spread out like elephant hair (although like elephants vary in hairy-ness, some rexes could be more fluffy than others)
@@evo_ds1946 there's no evidence of that. several of its closely related tyrannosauridswere feathered but almost no one in the t-rex size scale, and we do have several skin impressions of it showing no feathers. for now, the consensus is that we have no reason to believe it had any, at least not in adulthood.
@@gamongames Lack of evidence does not mean confirmation of it not having feathers. Evo is perfectly right in that it is possible for rex to have very small amounts of feathering, seeing as the scale impressions we have aren't all over the body.
@@AcidicGothess that initial statement shows you clearly dont know how science works. lack of evidence is the defining point. if someone wants to argue for feathers, they should produce evidence for it. thats how it works. until then, the official version is not feathers.
@@gamongames really the truth is it doesn't matter and it can be depicted either way or anywhere in between. T.rex has the ancestors for feathers, but also the size that may prevent it. Until we have further evidence to make a more solid conclusion then depictions either way are fine.
In Jurassic World, Dr. Wu said that Nothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth.
@@pman56789 Louis’ response was to address the host’s noted disparity where he asked why the present/engineered dinosaurs looked so different than the ones depicted 65 mil years ago. It was a brilliant way of explaining the difference in 2015, and helped give the JW chapters so much more credibility.
Jurassic park had themselves in the clear with the dino community as their dinos were genetically engineered, but they totally boned themselves showing rex and giga together
Another misconception is that large carnivorous dinosaurs roared. Sadly they didn't have the ability to do that, they had more of a low growl like crocs do. As a matter of fact the cassowary bird sounds even more like what the T. rex would’ve sounded like. Absolutely terrifying. 😬😰
A paper came out last year hypothesizing that large Tyrannosaurus didn’t have much feathery coating if any at all. So ancient Rexy having them is kind of pointless lmao
only one paper and hypothesizing are the highlights here, we still need more studies (and more fossils) to be sure about that, specially because a lot of tyrannosaurids actually have already been proven to have feathers. The paper you are referring to also only talks about the T.rex only btw, there were a few species of Tyrannosaurus.
@@felipecapoccia5564 The scientists who are working on some of the more recent holotype specimans also believe this to be the case. Given the hotter climate in would have lived it isn't likely trex had feathering. Similar to how the African elephants dropped their coating. We have several impressions of trex skin including parts of the vertebrae with no evidence of proto feathering
Fellow paleontologist from MT here. As long as it's not as sad as Fallen Kingdom, I'll be happy with it. "It's not a documentary, it's a Hollywood movie."- Spielberg
Refreshing to hear the thoughts of an expert who can appreciate the depiction without being snobby about it. If you want that, see 90% of the comments on this video...
My guess is they have that “flashback” to show the ferocity of the giganotosaurus and set up the ending of the movie with Rexy getting the kill on it. Blue might even tag team with her again.
@@lepetitpain4591 you realize that doesn’t matter right? She put up more of fight against the indominus. What about the T.Rex in the Cretaceous? That one wasn’t old. Yet it didn’t land a hit. Older Tyrannosaurs simply lose more of there agility, that doesn’t mean they lose all their skill and knowledge.
@@ztlabraptor211 why does that make it weird? Makes sense the prologue dinosaurs look more scientifically accurate than the modern day artificial recreations.
@@victorpleitez768 sure but there are still lots of inaccuracies which is odd. Like the original Jurassic park by Michael Crichton and the original JP weren’t written with the idea of inaccurate dinosaurs in mind, new discoveries just came to light later on. Luckily though this was easily explainable due to the cloning process so it made sense, and in Jurassic world they leaned into that. The prologue is supposed to be accurate though , cause it’s the original Cretaceous period with real dinosaurs unaffected by gene splicing, but they still monsterfied the giganotosaurus and chose to pick dinosaurs from all different eras and all different periods of time
@@victorpleitez768 in their universe, but base on our current understanding, the prologue should reflect on what our current knowledge on prehistoric life should be
This prologue really irritates me tbh because it's such wasted potential. The animals look and behave much more realistically and accurately than anything we've seen before in this franchise. But none of that matters because they didn't care about putting animals in the proper place in time. They just smashed a load of random, popular creatures from different points in time and across the world together. They don't have the clone excuse anymore because this is supposed to be set in the Cretaceous, with the "true" dinosaurs that the modified clones were derived from. Colin Trevorrow even claimed that it was going to be accurate. But it isn't. They're actively misleading people about dinosaurs
The best part is that there is a correct time equivalent for every dinosaur they showed here except for giga and ptero Here are the animals that lived with T.rex that are related or very similar to the ones in the prologue Oviraptor=anzu Dreadnoughtus=alamosaurus Nasutoceratops=triceratops Moros=acheroraptor or a juvenile t.rex iguanodon=edmontosaurus
Maybe the newer dinosaurs are bald because they are clones made with DNA mixed in from other animals? That would be kind of a cool way of explaining that
If you look at the skull of a T.Rex, it has holes above the teeth, indicating that it had a kind of lip that could potentially close the upper and lower jaws. Human skulls have the same indicator of holes around the mouth area as well. Just food for thought.
Man this should have been the one scene they made mostly unscientific accurate. Would have been more exciting to see Rexy fight a Triceratops. It's something that would have actually happened and we've not seen it in that in these movies yet.
My two cents: I'm very glad that there at least was an attempt to represent accurate dinos in media, even if its FAR from perfect. Also, T-Rex, in my opinion, should perhaps have less feathering? More like elephant hairs then a big coat of fluff, as well as having a more keratinous face.
I’m pretty sure that it is very unlikely for a Giga to kill a Tyrannosaurus, based on the fact the Tyrannosaurus had a way stronger bite force, while also having a more muscular build than the Giga. (Still Looks Like A Great Movie Though)
This is underrated and surprised how many haven't pointed out Trex dying that easily is false. Just one bite from the Rex would've had the giga severely wounded if not critically. Rex's bite was meant to hold on while obliterating whatever is in their grip. Ntm you're correct, Rex is a much heavier and aggressive. As of now Trex is bigger than any Giga found, in length and weight too.
If there was a velociraptor in this prologue trailer and he talked about it alot of people would now know that it the real raptor didn't stand taller than humans but was about up to your knee and it had a lot of feathers.
'we were on the verge of greatness, we were this close' some great accurate designs, brought down by some terribly outdated ones, and some clearly poor research. Dont get me wrong, its great to see all these species that people dont know about, but they deserved better treatment, and the work of palaeontologists that let us understand and create an image of what these animals looked like deserves more respect. These arent movie monsters, a major theme of the book and first film, so they should not be presented as such in terms of design, and should be rendered as one would render any modern species. Otherwise its just misinformation and a disservice to the science that allows to even know of these amazing animals in the first place. Great to see some more accuracy, but its brought down by such dramatic inaccuracy portrayed as a real look into the Cretaceous when its so far from it. Especially visible with oviraptor, imagine if we got to see it on a nest looking after its eggs, instead of such an outdated idea.
Now that we have Prehistoric Planet which is the most scientifically accurate we got with dinosaurs, T.Rex had feathers but not a lot. It still looks like a scaly trex like Rexy in JP but in some shots we can see it has some small feathers and pignifibers that don’t look obvious
They don’t use the term pack hunters it was more like in Jurassic park 2 it was a family of 3-4 and the child would leave once old enough but they didn’t fight or coordinate like a regular pack would like a Utahraptor or the velociraptor would
Guess unless we were alive when they were we wont know. Because theyve found several instances in vastly different locations of more than 4 to 7 full grown t rex in the same area when they died...unless they were hosting a boxing match id say some chance they may have lived with one another.
@@JesusGomez-ob2qt Jurassic park has a reason for inaccuracies due to gene splicing, this trex Vs giga fight is sent in the past, there's no explanation.
@@Ceeckoful yes but that's for the modern day. This is supposed to be set back 65 million years ago before the scientists filled in the gaps. It's supposed to be pure 100 percent dinosaur. Wich makes this innacurate and only contradicts the past movies and books.
no. You being too dumb to differentiate reality from fiction is ruinning it for yourself. The Jurassic licence is a work of fiction, and the people working on it have every right to establish whatever they want as part of the canon. So because this isn't a documentary, they can show us whatever they want, and we have to accept it a face value. Moreover, this fight scene also bears a narrative purpose to establish the Giganotosaurus as a greater threat than the T-rex. Too bad your silly expectation weren't met by a work of fiction from a licence of the seventh art.
actually they did, they spend million for scientist help... unfortunately, not all scientist have same theory since we never see dinosaur in person only study from bone and stuff
But most of what was shown in the prologue was accurate (he even stated that). The improvement to the T-Rex's arms and most notably the therapods having feathers is a clear indication they knew where to improve. The Giga fighting the T-Rex is obviously just a way to introduce the films antagonist (Giga) and to setup the two to fight again, most likely at the end of the film. The director is aware the two would've never met but artistic licensing is a great thing. If you search up the making of Jurassic Park (1993) you'll see that the animators had the Raptors hissing and their tongues flicking out like a reptile. Luckily they did actually have scientists/palaeontologists on set to address this matter and make them more bird like.
They already explained it. In the first Jurassic Park movie they addressed mixing in modern DNA, specifically frog DNA. In the first Jurassic world they explicitly said most of the animals would look very different with pure DNA but they look the way they do thanks to the modern animal DNA they were forced to include. They don't need to address it in that film because it's already been canonically addressed.
In one of the movies they do talk about how in one scene how they altered the dinosaurs to more closely resemble what they thought their park audience's would expect a dino to look like rather than what they would actually look like. That's why all the dinos are bald... and maybe why they're so mad?
For the fandom it was just a marketing strategy, at the 90s the movie was based on the limited evidence we had, Jurassic Park aged just like other documentaries at the time, an artistic licence it's usually what saves scientifically obsolete content.
There's an artist who came up with an image he called "Grizzly Rex" which not only puts dense feather fluff on the tyrannosaur, but gave it a grizzly bear color pattern.
Yo, thank you, people who say fur-covered or feathered dinosaurs wouldn't be scary or intimidating don't know what they're talking about. What a cool interpretation of T. Rex.
Hey Joe Bonsor and IGN. big fan loved the commentary, to the point of the dino's not having feather is present day. This was explained in the first Jurassic World film by Dr. Henry Wu, who stated that his dinos weren't really dinos in the first place and they would probably look very different because of his genetic tampering to bring them to life.
The lack of feathers or proto-feathers on the Jurassic World dinos is actually explained by Dr.Wu. He does say 'these aren't dinosaurs' Mutating the DNA changes everything.
@@B-rex395 its most likely rexy’s last movie plus dinosaur’s did swim or island hopped. And remember is this Jurassic world they said they will make the dinosaur’s more authentic not geology authentic
Giganotosaurus lived in South america(99-97 millions of years) and Tyrannosaurus lived in North America(68-65 millions of years), and Iguanodon in Europe and Africa (126-122 millions of years).
the prologue should be the direction where jurassic world dominion ought to be heading showing intense conflict between dinosaurs and modern civilisations and everyday dealings with dinosaur intrusion upon the lives of average human beings not confined to some remote island but in busy metropolis and cities
I'm kinda sad...I thought it said dinosaur reacts and was hoping to see a dinosaur react to the movie. Also in one of the movies they mentioned the dinosaurs look different because of the frog dna they used to complete the DNA strands to make the dinos.
@IapetusMC Eh, there are some deffinitive anatomical issues on some of the species shown in the segment, specially on models that were directly pulled from the previous films (Ankylosaurus, Pteranodon, T. rex)...
but this scene happens in the past, 65 millions years ago, they are supposed to be the real dinos, not the strange frog altered things they call "dinosaurs" in the movies
6:38 I’m not sure about that. As far as I’ve seen, the Paleo community generally agrees that t.rex had either no feathers, the amount shone here or less.
They explained why every dinosaur in Jurassic Park looks different to real life scientific analysis already in Jurassic world. Dr Henry Wu explains that they are scientifically altered during the cloning process due to the mixing of the DNA with other species as well as the park owners wanting them to look more like what people expect dinosaurs to look like
The thing is that Rexys probably didn’t even have feathers, only those who lived in very cold areas. But a T-Rex who lived in hot areas like mostly, would die if he had fathers because it would be way too hot
There wouldn’t have been a fight between these two, even if they somehow met. Rex was incredibly aggressive and fossils show marks from fights between them and other rex. Giga and other larger carnivores didn’t have these. Then you get into a size/power level…Rex was a 10000 pound mass of muscle with a bite force 3x that of giga or any other land animal. Game over before it began.
Dude the reason we have so many rexes with injuries is because we have more skeletons of them, not because they are more aggressive And rex used its bite force for crushing bone, not for fighting
The largest Trexes found were close to 10 tons that's like 19k to 20k pounds and having a bite force to match as well. This isn't just fanboying either, Rex had a lot going on for it being the most advanced & smartest large carnivore. It wasn't the longest but it was the strongest & bulkiest with a powerful bite
The fact one giant meat eating Theropod dinosaur existed 30 million years before another is beyond human comprehension. Imagine a different human species existing 30 million years ago. Dinosaur time scales are insane.
Well, it wouldn't really be a human species It'd be a different ape hominid because at that point it's no longer human or even as close to related to us
@@TyrannoKoenigsegg Says who? That depends on our definition of human. There is no set time limit for a successful species. Sharks are virtually the same as their ancestors millions of years ago because it worked. T-Rex and Giganotosuras were still theropod Dinosaurs. Far closer related to each other than either are to a Crocodile or a Turtle.
@@alexojideagu Says anyone who knows a little bit about biology? "Human" is defined as homo sapiens. Homo sapiens only exists for about 300k years. The earliest thing that could be considered "human-like" (but still very different from us) lived some 3-4 million years ago. T-Rex and giganotosaurus aren't even in the same lineage, they lived half a world apart and T-Rex is not only 30 million years younger it evolved through a separate line of therapods, one does not descend from the other. Yes they are both therapods, and so are sparrows, how much do you think a sparrow has in common with a T-Rex?
You're pulling assumptions out of your arse. There is nothing genetically stopping an animal or humans remaining almost the same for millions of years if conditions are right. Evolution isn't a destination that can be predicted or governed by time. A chicken is the closest living ancestor of a T-Rex and both are therapod dinosaurs. A "Human" has no specific definition in nature. Infact some think Chimpanzees should be categorised as a human species.
You'd think the dinosaur expert would be up to date on findings. Then again, it does seem a lot of paleontologists argue for ideas they like rather than reality. Kinda like how Jack Horner seems hell-bent on making the Tyrannosaurus seem lame because he thinks it's overrated.
To be fair this design still falls in what the paper states as plausible: feathers on top of the back and neck. And it's very sparse here, nothing impossible about it. Combine that with the fact that the sediments Tyrannosaurus rex fossils are found in aren't able to preserve feathers, this is all quite okay. All the rest is still very wrong though.
In the movies, they explained that the modern T. rex has some genome gaps, which were then filled with modern amphibian dna, hence, the lack of feathers.
They already explained from the very first film that the DNA was incomplete so they used frog DNA and other reptiles to make up for it, even in Jurassic World Dr. Wu pointed out that if they were able to produce a 1:1 replica of the Dinosaurs all of them would look significantly different
@Bingo So you wouldn't call a human picking up a gun and shooting an elementary school for seemingly no reason, evil? (Which, in case you didn't know, has been happening a lot lately.)
Just one single thing that annoys me is that trex most likely had no feathers. Yes, they may have had feathers as a baby but they would generally lose them whilst growing up.
We have next to no idea whether or not T. rex had feathers, and even less information to suggest they would lose them with age (a feature not known in modern birds). Based upon phylogenetic bracketing we would expect a downy coat of basic protofeathers for all tyrannosaurs. The skin impressions we do have show mosaic scales, however these impressions are not from depositional environments that would preserve feathers, also feathers and scales can coexist on birds today. At the moment all we can say is we don’t really know, and that there are reasons we could argue each way for a feathered or non-feathered T. rex.
if we go with "Giganotosaurus is misnamed Acrocanthosaurus" theory, the fluff on rex made a bit more sense. As Acro are smaller than both rex and giga so that rex might be a younger individual.
*Giganotosaurus Fun Fact:* Coria and Currie (2006) note the majority of possible adult specimens known are comparable in size to the Giganotosaurus carolinii holotype (MUCPv-Ch1)which suggested these individuals were around 12.4 meters in length and 8320 kg, although not with the same exact proportions, having taller and wider neural spines, a more elongate fibula (101 centimetres compared to 98.5 centimetres) but more slender (81-89% the width as in MUCPv-Ch1) and with a differently proportioned skull that was deeper relative to its length. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, these aren't the largest remains from the bonebed - a pubic shaft (MCF-PVPH-108.145) 10% larger than that of MUCPv-Ch1 suggests a maximum size of 13.6-13.7 meters long and up to 11100 kg. Some tibiae (MCF-PVPH-108.68-73) also suggest very large sizes of roughly 12.7-13.2 meters long and 8950-9880 kg. *Tyrannosaurus Rex Fun Fact:* The most complete and largest Tyrannosaurus specimen is Sue (FMNH PR 2081) which was 12 - 12.3m long and 8265 - 8700kg according to paleontologists Asier Larramendi and Scott Hartman. Another Tyrannosaurus specimen dubbed "Scotty" is reportedly a bit bigger than Sue (13m and 9 tons) but no measurements are published at the moment and recently suggests it may have been actually smaller. The Tyrannosaurus holotype CM 9380/AMNH 973 was 11.68m long and around 7 tons according to newer GDI by Larramendi, Paul 2020. *Spinosaurus Fun Fact:* Spinosaurus may have had the largest theropod among all known carnivorous dinosaurs, much heavier than known specimens of T. rex and similar in size to or somewhat heavier than known specimens of giant carcharodontosaurids like Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus. The latest estimates suggests a weight of more than 12860 kg and a length of 15.8 to 16 meters for the 1 possible adult specimen (NHMUK R-16421) that can be estimated based on overlap with other specimens. Some other specimens (MSNM v4047, NMC 41852) may suggest similar sizes to these when they can be estimated from overlap with other specimens according to Ibrahim, Maganuco etc. Other sources for references are Spinoinwonderland, Getawaytrike.
The dinosaurs are as anatomically innacurate as their InGen version, but this prologue Is set 66 milions years ago. So, for the creators of the film, these are the real Dinosaurs, and they are largely wrong. So the Dinosaurs in this franchise have always been innacurate, and the toad DNA excuse no longer holds.
@@lunathekuduruk1311 Pretty much two yeah, especially since this Rex in the prologue is technically not Rexy, rather an endeavor recreated to make Rexy
A lot of arm-chair experts in the comments section holding up the otherwise wonderful books/films as actual scientific reasoning for the many non-scientific holes and inconsistencies, which is the entire point of this video 🙄 So, ignoring those people, great video 🙂👍
For those that don't know.. The T-rex on the Main Islands in all the movies... Park.... World... Fallen Kingdom.. and now Dominion.. all the same T-rex! All Rexxy.. Our girl is old! But we still love her!
How cool would it be if this film finishes with Rexy beating a Giganotosaurus in a fight and then standing over it and roaring just like it did with the Velociraptors at the end of the first Jurassic Park. A great way to close out the sequal trilogy!
My best guess about why the ancient trex in this had feathers and the one in the modern day one didn’t is because they mix reptilian, amphibian and aves/raptor genetics to fill in the genetic gaps for the dinosaurs for the park. These extra genes from present day animals might have had an impact on wether the dino’s had feathers when they were bought back to life
They actually say why the T-Rex looks different in the first Jurassic World, with a reference to the original Jurassic Park. In Jurassic Park, we are told that they use Frog and reptile DNA to fill in the holes in the Dino DNA strains. In JW, Dr Wu says says that because of the added DNA, these Dinosaurs don't look the same as the ones that lived 65 million years ago.
![BAK Jay - Find Out (For Your Love) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/10FJO_XBCvY/mqdefault.jpg)
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video Part 2!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JpT5Voak6WA/mqdefault.jpg)
Just saying if they remade Walking With Dinosaurs with this quality of VFX and thee updated modern accuracy it could potentially be one of the greatest pieces of dinosaur media of all time
I've been longing for it for some time.
Dinosaur media? Media in general
Would watch that all day!
@RussiantoIndia You think the budget would surpass a movie like "Avatar"'s? (Tall blue people)
Yea
Time for a new walking with dinosaurs series with similar budget
You wish
Yes totally agree
Check out Planet Dinosaur
Yea
@@gtone339 PD is quite old at this point, and certainly didn't age well.
Well, I’d have thought it was obvious why Rexy doesn’t have feathers/fur, she’s not a ‘pure’ Rex, none of the cloned animals are ‘pure’, since Wu had to mix in other DNA samples to get viable genomes, that was established in the first book.
Exactly
Current research that I'm aware of state that t-rex didn't have feathers. Smaller Asian tyrannosaurs had them, but skin impressions of the rex don't show any feathers or the skin structures associated with them. Maybe they had them as juveniles, but adults didn't.
They actually talked about that in the first JW. Guess this "expert" didn't bother to watch that one.
@@misatokitty76 Do you have a source for this? all the research ive seen over the past few years suggest that the t-rex had "fluff" around the neck area at least
Skin impressions from tyrannosaurus and relatives such as tarbosaurus show it never had any feathers or fuzz of any sort
To be fair, when he was talking about the DNA in the mosquito, I'm pretty sure in the original novel they address this by saying they don't know which dinosaur they're making until it's created.
And in the 2nd novel they explained further that for each successfully cloned dinosaur, there were hundreds of attempts that never made it out of the egg, or were sickly, disfigured, etc.
Yes, it's true.
Still doesn’t make a lot of sense from a real-world POV.
@@Infiny92 Well from a real-world POV, no one has made cloned dinosaurs yet. So yeah, score one for it not being a thing that actually works.
@@Infiny92 it’s a series about bringing back animals that have been dead for 65 million years, realism can be mostly overlooked here
'This is a scared animal that doesn't know what's going on' is not the sort of thing you expect somebody to say about a dinosaur attacking people but he's absolutely right.
They briefly mentioned in Jurassic world that they engineered the dinosaurs to look like what they think it should look like. Aka more teeth. It was a cool way to still have the dinosaurs look like they have for years and still acknowledge they aren’t technically accurate
True when explaining their clones but this scene is suppose to be an accurate back in time shot. They made weird choices
But this scene features actual dinos from the cretaceous period
Not the clones
They even say that their are a mix bad of DNA of other creatures to fill in the gaps.
@@thewizardspipe4265 He was referring to 10:15 when the expert was comparing the shots of the feathery dino to the one that is loose in the present day....
@@thisBrian thank you that was my point
Despite all of the inaccuracies and such, the prologue was honestly fantastic! There was definitely some animal/palaeontologist experts working with the film crew for this one.
Hm yes the paleontologists that never bothered to mention the grass that was there ten million years before it was supposed to evolve.
Which paleontologist there came up with that horrid Giganotosaurus design?
They had Steve Brussatte yes :)
@@otomatonesattheendoftime2396 Well what do you expect? Movies aren't supposed to be 100% accurate after all.
@@lordshotgun7168
it'd be nice if they were even 10% accurate (sarcasm)
@@lordshotgun7168 This seems like something very easy to avoid and that anyone can do simple research on. I'm sure they had paleontologists helping them, but they made it clear they wanted to have some artistic freedom.
The camera man that recorded the intro to the prologue should make an 2h wildlife documentary.
Or camera woman?
dont think there were any cameras used for the prologue. Looks like its 100% cgi
@@pay2081 it’s a joke bud
@@pay2081 yeah especially with The alive flesh dinosaurs
@@nastyham5302 nah
To be fair, they seem to aknowledge the inaccuracies several times. Jurassic World, Henry Wu stated that if the DNA they found was more pure, a lot of the dinosaurs would look very different. In Jurassic Park 3, Alan Grant stated they were "theme park monsters."
The prologue is set in the Mesozoic so that context isn’t applicable
Yeah. It seems that Jurassic World and (probably) Jurassic park changed the dinosaurs' DNA to make them more scary and to draw in more tourists.
Well, that idea backfired.
except this is set when the real Dinos were around and since the in canon real Dinos look rather similar to the clones it mean they were not that inaccurate, making a huge contradiction in the writing
@@caelincoolz5814 no, they had to use other animals DNA so they could be complete, not because of other reasons, it is stated already in the first movie
"There's no such thing as an evil animal"
Dolphins beg to differ.
*orcas
Orcas are dolphins but even then their both evil
@@battlememesbyomari1979 orcas are dolphins
Humans: *nervous shaking*
Cats, they are secretly plotting to take over your home and then the world.
Let’s be honest guys, this prologue looked amazing… a great immersive experience
Yup, You're right
meh
No, not at all
@@theanzugod4828 What do you expect? Movies don't have to be 100% accurate after all.
@@otomatonesattheendoftime2396 Then piss off and go back to YT kids.
Now I'm not saying I've seen a Giganotosaur before, but looking between the fossil rebuilds and the paleoart for Gigas, *that* sure doesn't look like a Giga. It *does* look like an Acrocanthosaurus, though, and while that's removed even further from Trex by many more millions of years, it'd be cool to see Acro get some big screen love
Doesn’t explain the armour. None of the theropods were armoured.
It doesn’t looks like Acrocsnthosaurus either. It looks like a monster that would’ve never existed
@@Lamborlobator Cause of his back you could think its a acro. But yeah it looks more like another idominus...
It mosty looks like Carcharodontosaurus.
@@VH_XXIII It’s literally just a dragon☠️
I’m so glad that the first thing that was shown in the video is the fact that these creatures are separated by tens of millions of years. That was also my biggest problem with the prologue. It’s nice to here the real science behind dinosaurs even though it’s easy to forget how much time actually divides their time of reign.
He should play Telltales Jurassic Park, there's a journal that explains the cause of all the inconsistencies
But it isn't cannon?
The original book explains the inconsistencies.
Jp: The Game is semi canon
It was explained in the book and in JW too
@@dakotaraptoranimationstudi1141 the events of JPTG are canon, how they’re portrayed is only semi-canon (or “soft” canon)
@Blue The Velociraptor
What's the explanation?
Nah, they weren't scared to deviate, its just in JP and other JW movies, they used frog dna instead of bird dna to fill gaps getting rid of the feathers. Also the JP3 T-rex is a different T-Rex than this one.
The frog DNA bit is an explanation they came up with after the fact.
Granted, it does come from the original novel but when the first movie was made no one thought "we gotta make the dinosaurs look a little different from their irl counterparts because of the frog DNA". It was always "what would look cool".
At this point Universal doesn't want to change the designs purely for marketing reasons. These dinosaurs are established characters and a drastic change in design propably wouldn't go down too well with most fans of the franchise.
They put Wu's line in JW where he says "they never looked like the real animals" or sth like that, because of how many people complain that they should go with the times and make more accurate designs.
@@knaltor Exactly, it's never stated that the frog DNA is there to fill for their gaps that would affect their phenotype (aka how they look). In the book or movie it only had reproductive effects. They just keep the same designs because they make their money by repeating what people already know. It's more secure to make your profits on an established audience's preferences.
Otherwise if you have "DNA gap filling technology", even if you had missing DNA that correspond with the look of the animals, they might just as well fill them with DNA that would result in a more accurate dinosaur if they wanted to go that route, or just dig up more DNA samples until you get a complete genome like in them video games.
They’ve changed his roar too. It’s similar but still a little different.
@@mitkoogrozev Was it not? The whole plot point of the frog DNA leading to reproduction was an unintended consequence, I'm pretty sure in the original book the frog DNA was used to fill in the missing gaps. And finding enough fossils of the same animal to get a complete genome would be VERY difficult, depending on the animal.
@@kenjutsukata1o1 I'm not aware of the DNA frog filling to explain anything BUT the reproduction. They never stated in the originals that the gaps are so extensive that it will change the appearance of the animal.
And since it's not stated explicitly , in the latest Jurassic World movies they used it as an 'excuse' to not update the design. It's more safe and sure that a big franchise will be profitable again , if you don't introduce such big visual changes. So they went "heey, the since there's DNA filling we can use it to explain away our not-updated design!"
But DNA editing tech would allow you to go in both directions . If they weren't scared of losing money, they might as well use the same explanation of DNA filling , to fill it with the DNA of various modern animals ( like they did in Jurassic world and said that they've used cuttlefish genes, among other animals for the Indominus), to fill the genome in such a way, that it matches closer the appearance of real dinosaurs, at least as we understand how dinosaur looked now. We'll never know exactly how they actually looked, but we're getting closer with more and more evidence.
In Jurassic world movie only Henry Wu explained that these dinosaurs were not genetically pure ,they were always mixed with frog DNA so they looked quite different than prehistoric dinos
In the first Jurassic park movie that was explained when they all came to the park
the frog DNA thing never really made sense to me, yes ik its for plot reasons, but genetically speaking crocodilians and birds are closer related, as both are archosaurs, yet even mammals are closer related to dinosaurs than dinosaurs are to amphibians :/
@@Jebiwibiwabo read the novel
@@Jebiwibiwabo in the novel they used several different animal DNA to fill in gene-gaps not just frog. and they tested and retried until they got a result they were happy with- ie viable birth, looked right, and slow/docile enough to manage in a park setting (theres a part where Muldoon was complaining that even the large animals were still much to fast for him to handle in an emergency)
It really baffles me that they keep making the the most iconic dinosaur of their franchise lose every single fight with other big carnivores, like come on, it’s the most iconic dinosaur of your franchise, give it some love ffs!
That's because the most iconic dinosaur is only at the top of its food chain in the era and location its in
It lost once...
It's a clear setup for the T-Rex to beat the Giga towards the end of the film. So everyone will be like "Yay rexy won this time"
@@singmysin yeah and the same can be said about the spino and the giga so arguing “well it was only at the top of the food chain in its era” and assuming therefore it would lose against other apex predators of other eras it’s not really a valid justification or conclusion.
The fact is tried could have win any of those fight just as easily as lose them and what I’m upset about is not that it lost once or twice, but that it has lost EVERY SINGLE FIGHT.
@@singmysin That doesn’t make any sense both of these animals were specialize in different things and if they were to fight it would be extremely close it wouldn’t be one-sided…
Thought, in very recent years, general paleontological thinking had reverted back to T-rex Not having feathers? So, possibly the prologue Rex is now inaccurate, ironically.
T.rex could very well still have feathers as it's ancestral group were feathered, but the feathers would be restricted to the top half of the body and would probably be small and spread out like elephant hair (although like elephants vary in hairy-ness, some rexes could be more fluffy than others)
@@evo_ds1946 there's no evidence of that.
several of its closely related tyrannosauridswere feathered but almost no one in the t-rex size scale, and we do have several skin impressions of it showing no feathers.
for now, the consensus is that we have no reason to believe it had any, at least not in adulthood.
@@gamongames Lack of evidence does not mean confirmation of it not having feathers. Evo is perfectly right in that it is possible for rex to have very small amounts of feathering, seeing as the scale impressions we have aren't all over the body.
@@AcidicGothess that initial statement shows you clearly dont know how science works.
lack of evidence is the defining point.
if someone wants to argue for feathers, they should produce evidence for it. thats how it works.
until then, the official version is not feathers.
@@gamongames really the truth is it doesn't matter and it can be depicted either way or anywhere in between. T.rex has the ancestors for feathers, but also the size that may prevent it. Until we have further evidence to make a more solid conclusion then depictions either way are fine.
In Jurassic World, Dr. Wu said that Nothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth.
But this takes place 65 million years ago, way before humans existed and could clone the dinosaurs.
@@pman56789 Louis’ response was to address the host’s noted disparity where he asked why the present/engineered dinosaurs looked so different than the ones depicted 65 mil years ago. It was a brilliant way of explaining the difference in 2015, and helped give the JW chapters so much more credibility.
@@312mattzway Okay
Came here to use Dr Wu's line but found this. Spot on.
@@sasquatch668able Yeah
Thought it said “Dinosaur reacts”
not da momma!
Jurassic park had themselves in the clear with the dino community as their dinos were genetically engineered, but they totally boned themselves showing rex and giga together
Its a parallel universe where they used millions year old dead and dried blood ti make a living dinosaur
@@kiryuthedragonwarrior2746 the Jurassic Park is the same universe as the Jurassic World
Again fictional story fictional universe anything is possible in that plus it is a franchise based off a horror book
@@swordchannelfires Still a fictional/parallel universe.
@@aaronsandman749 uhh duh ofc
ofc it is am just correcting that dude
Another misconception is that large carnivorous dinosaurs roared. Sadly they didn't have the ability to do that, they had more of a low growl like crocs do. As a matter of fact the cassowary bird sounds even more like what the T. rex would’ve sounded like. Absolutely terrifying. 😬😰
A very intense low grow, probably...
One that you'd probably feel vibrating your guts
They would have made booming sounds like birds do.
Pretty sure they had a meow like sound
tbh the general audience wouldn't like a large carnivore to not roar, for a long time it's a must for them to do that
No they barked like a dog, how the fk does anyone know how a extinct animal sounded.
A paper came out last year hypothesizing that large Tyrannosaurus didn’t have much feathery coating if any at all. So ancient Rexy having them is kind of pointless lmao
We will get some more deffinitive answers soon...
only one paper and hypothesizing are the highlights here, we still need more studies (and more fossils) to be sure about that, specially because a lot of tyrannosaurids actually have already been proven to have feathers. The paper you are referring to also only talks about the T.rex only btw, there were a few species of Tyrannosaurus.
What was the name of the paper? Who wrote it? What are the author's previous dissertations?
We have skin impressions of trex specifically and it shows leather like scales with no sign of feathers.
@@felipecapoccia5564 The scientists who are working on some of the more recent holotype specimans also believe this to be the case. Given the hotter climate in would have lived it isn't likely trex had feathering. Similar to how the African elephants dropped their coating. We have several impressions of trex skin including parts of the vertebrae with no evidence of proto feathering
Oviraptor, girl I'm so sorry that we thought you were a thief! You weren't actually raptoring ovis.
Kinda uncomfortable seeing feathered dinosaurs combined with the wrong hand anatomy 😓
And yet they fixed the T. rex hands.
@@skepticalbadger not really, look closer
@@thelittleal1212 they did atleast make them closer to the accurate arms
@@matejajanic6932 um, maybe
@@thelittleal1212 what was wrong with the hands
Fellow paleontologist from MT here. As long as it's not as sad as Fallen Kingdom, I'll be happy with it. "It's not a documentary, it's a Hollywood movie."- Spielberg
wasted money lol
Refreshing to hear the thoughts of an expert who can appreciate the depiction without being snobby about it. If you want that, see 90% of the comments on this video...
My guess is they have that “flashback” to show the ferocity of the giganotosaurus and set up the ending of the movie with Rexy getting the kill on it. Blue might even tag team with her again.
If rexy or blue dies ima Scream, if both due ima end my life.
@@lepetitpain4591 then allow me to be the first to bid you farewell 👋
Turns out that the Tyrannosaurs are disrespected once again
@@darkshat3077 bro she is 30+ years old, obviously she's weaker
@@lepetitpain4591 you realize that doesn’t matter right? She put up more of fight against the indominus. What about the T.Rex in the Cretaceous? That one wasn’t old. Yet it didn’t land a hit. Older Tyrannosaurs simply lose more of there agility, that doesn’t mean they lose all their skill and knowledge.
They already explained why the dinosaurs look different, they fill the gaps in dna with other animal DNA that's why they look different.
In general yeah, but the prologue is intended to show real dinosaurs 65 million years ago which makes it weird
@@ztlabraptor211 why does that make it weird? Makes sense the prologue dinosaurs look more scientifically accurate than the modern day artificial recreations.
@@victorpleitez768 sure but there are still lots of inaccuracies which is odd. Like the original Jurassic park by Michael Crichton and the original JP weren’t written with the idea of inaccurate dinosaurs in mind, new discoveries just came to light later on. Luckily though this was easily explainable due to the cloning process so it made sense, and in Jurassic world they leaned into that.
The prologue is supposed to be accurate though , cause it’s the original Cretaceous period with real dinosaurs unaffected by gene splicing, but they still monsterfied the giganotosaurus and chose to pick dinosaurs from all different eras and all different periods of time
We should always strive for accuracy when depicting nature. People's misconceptions about the natural world can be very harmful
@@victorpleitez768 in their universe, but base on our current understanding, the prologue should reflect on what our current knowledge on prehistoric life should be
10:14 Its because they used frog DNA to complete the DNA sequences of the dinosaurs that were missing in the first Jurassic Park film.
This prologue really irritates me tbh because it's such wasted potential. The animals look and behave much more realistically and accurately than anything we've seen before in this franchise. But none of that matters because they didn't care about putting animals in the proper place in time. They just smashed a load of random, popular creatures from different points in time and across the world together. They don't have the clone excuse anymore because this is supposed to be set in the Cretaceous, with the "true" dinosaurs that the modified clones were derived from. Colin Trevorrow even claimed that it was going to be accurate. But it isn't. They're actively misleading people about dinosaurs
The best part is that there is a correct time equivalent for every dinosaur they showed here except for giga and ptero
Here are the animals that lived with T.rex that are related or very similar to the ones in the prologue
Oviraptor=anzu
Dreadnoughtus=alamosaurus
Nasutoceratops=triceratops
Moros=acheroraptor or a juvenile t.rex
iguanodon=edmontosaurus
Maybe the newer dinosaurs are bald because they are clones made with DNA mixed in from other animals? That would be kind of a cool way of explaining that
That's right.
They’ve been genetically engineered that’s why they look the way they do so yes you are right
@@shreb6182 Whoosh
...it is exactly that though...that's why the female raptors were able to lay eggs in JP...nothing new
That’s literally part of the canon of the movies now.
Forget flat earth, I'm jumping on to the dinosaurs had lips train
If you look at the skull of a T.Rex, it has holes above the teeth, indicating that it had a kind of lip that could potentially close the upper and lower jaws. Human skulls have the same indicator of holes around the mouth area as well. Just food for thought.
👄
@@JRMJr99 but why would a dinosaur need lips? They don't have mammaries 0.o
NEITHER DO LIZARDS! And yet what do they have? LIPS YOU ABSOLUTE BRAINLET OF A HUMAN BEING.
@@jamessullivan317 reptiles have lips,its mostly to cover up the teeth so it doesn't dry up
Obviously that Giga is immortal and has lived for 30 million years via black magic
"No animal is evil".
Homo sapiens: Guess I'm not real.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge, Joe!
Man this should have been the one scene they made mostly unscientific accurate. Would have been more exciting to see Rexy fight a Triceratops. It's something that would have actually happened and we've not seen it in that in these movies yet.
My two cents: I'm very glad that there at least was an attempt to represent accurate dinos in media, even if its FAR from perfect. Also, T-Rex, in my opinion, should perhaps have less feathering? More like elephant hairs then a big coat of fluff, as well as having a more keratinous face.
Yeah, adult large theropods didn't have or need a thick coat of feathers, they'd likely overheat even.
@@Jaerek not necessarily coating could help with cooling
They didn't have feathers. So it should have none.
@@onigojira oh look the guy who went back in time to see if the tyrannosaurus had feathers or not, we can trust him
@@BlackDragon31000 we went back in time via skin impressions!
I’m pretty sure that it is very unlikely for a Giga to kill a Tyrannosaurus, based on the fact the Tyrannosaurus had a way stronger bite force, while also having a more muscular build than the Giga. (Still Looks Like A Great Movie Though)
This is underrated and surprised how many haven't pointed out Trex dying that easily is false. Just one bite from the Rex would've had the giga severely wounded if not critically. Rex's bite was meant to hold on while obliterating whatever is in their grip.
Ntm you're correct, Rex is a much heavier and aggressive. As of now Trex is bigger than any Giga found, in length and weight too.
T-Rex in Jurassic Park is extremely nerfed and tone down since the real t Rex would be an overkill
L W: Thats just my words.
And they lived in different places..
If there was a velociraptor in this prologue trailer and he talked about it alot of people would now know that it the real raptor didn't stand taller than humans but was about up to your knee and it had a lot of feathers.
No one talking about how oviraptor was from Asia
The dinosaurs are different in modern day because they were made with frog dna among other things
The arm posture of the Oviraptor isn't correct either.
Yeah should be facing otherwise it would break its wrists. Kinda weird they even went as far as putting fur or feathers
Oviraptor doesn't obey your rules, he can break his wrists for fashion if he wants.
It's not supposed to be accurate.
@@lordshotgun7168 thats the whole point of the scene tho?Collin treverrow kept marketing it as a scientifically accurate scene,which its very far from
'we were on the verge of greatness, we were this close'
some great accurate designs, brought down by some terribly outdated ones, and some clearly poor research. Dont get me wrong, its great to see all these species that people dont know about, but they deserved better treatment, and the work of palaeontologists that let us understand and create an image of what these animals looked like deserves more respect. These arent movie monsters, a major theme of the book and first film, so they should not be presented as such in terms of design, and should be rendered as one would render any modern species. Otherwise its just misinformation and a disservice to the science that allows to even know of these amazing animals in the first place. Great to see some more accuracy, but its brought down by such dramatic inaccuracy portrayed as a real look into the Cretaceous when its so far from it. Especially visible with oviraptor, imagine if we got to see it on a nest looking after its eggs, instead of such an outdated idea.
100% agree
An Oviraptor wrote this comment
Are you new to the franchise?
@@darkshat3077 no, but touche
cope
Joe is such a cool guy! We need more scientist like him!
Now that we have Prehistoric Planet which is the most scientifically accurate we got with dinosaurs, T.Rex had feathers but not a lot. It still looks like a scaly trex like Rexy in JP but in some shots we can see it has some small feathers and pignifibers that don’t look obvious
"T-rex always gets killed in the later films"
Whut. Literally one T-Rex has died in the franchise, and that was in 2001.
Did...did you not watch the video? Or the films?Can you not count? Or listen? Or see? Are you ok?🤦♂️
@AnnoyingVulture Yeah, you're right
@@masamune2984 😂😂😂
2 have died now. Plus one defeat to the I-Rex…
@@its_ezralol and defeated to the giga twice
If we had a new updated Walking With Dinosaurs that is up to date it would be a dream come true
Be interested to see his take on current findings of T Rex.
Supposedly many things pointing to they were more of pack hunters?
They weren’t, much more like Komodo dragons attacking a elk at the same time, much less coordinated than mammal pack hunting
They don’t use the term pack hunters it was more like in Jurassic park 2 it was a family of 3-4 and the child would leave once old enough but they didn’t fight or coordinate like a regular pack would like a Utahraptor or the velociraptor would
Guess unless we were alive when they were we wont know.
Because theyve found several instances in vastly different locations of more than 4 to 7 full grown t rex in the same area when they died...unless they were hosting a boxing match id say some chance they may have lived with one another.
Putting a Rex and giga in the same time period ruins it.
Most of it is innacurate to begin with it would still be ruined either way
@@JesusGomez-ob2qt Jurassic park has a reason for inaccuracies due to gene splicing, this trex Vs giga fight is sent in the past, there's no explanation.
@@Ceeckoful yes but that's for the modern day. This is supposed to be set back 65 million years ago before the scientists filled in the gaps. It's supposed to be pure 100 percent dinosaur. Wich makes this innacurate and only contradicts the past movies and books.
no. You being too dumb to differentiate reality from fiction is ruinning it for yourself.
The Jurassic licence is a work of fiction, and the people working on it have every right to establish whatever they want as part of the canon. So because this isn't a documentary, they can show us whatever they want, and we have to accept it a face value.
Moreover, this fight scene also bears a narrative purpose to establish the Giganotosaurus as a greater threat than the T-rex.
Too bad your silly expectation weren't met by a work of fiction from a licence of the seventh art.
It's just a dinosaur fight get over it
Y'know the director should've ask the scientist first for help before making this movie. Just to make it right for the film.
If these movies were as accurate as they should be they probably won’t be as fun. We probably be very very limited to what we’d see.
actually they did, they spend million for scientist help... unfortunately, not all scientist have same theory since we never see dinosaur in person only study from bone and stuff
But most of what was shown in the prologue was accurate (he even stated that). The improvement to the T-Rex's arms and most notably the therapods having feathers is a clear indication they knew where to improve. The Giga fighting the T-Rex is obviously just a way to introduce the films antagonist (Giga) and to setup the two to fight again, most likely at the end of the film.
The director is aware the two would've never met but artistic licensing is a great thing.
If you search up the making of Jurassic Park (1993) you'll see that the animators had the Raptors hissing and their tongues flicking out like a reptile. Luckily they did actually have scientists/palaeontologists on set to address this matter and make them more bird like.
They did to an extent, but not much. And that's because they don't actually care about the science, they just want hype around the movie.
@@MagikarpMaestro Most of it? The only accurate thing was that they gave some of them feathers.
They already explained it. In the first Jurassic Park movie they addressed mixing in modern DNA, specifically frog DNA. In the first Jurassic world they explicitly said most of the animals would look very different with pure DNA but they look the way they do thanks to the modern animal DNA they were forced to include.
They don't need to address it in that film because it's already been canonically addressed.
ITs meant to be 66 million years in the past, they should look accurate.
The rex design is awesome
It's not about accuracy Joe, it's about drive, it's about power.
We stay hungry we devour
@@glonkerdonker132 put in the work, put in the hours.
And take whats ours!
In one of the movies they do talk about how in one scene how they altered the dinosaurs to more closely resemble what they thought their park audience's would expect a dino to look like rather than what they would actually look like. That's why all the dinos are bald... and maybe why they're so mad?
For the fandom it was just a marketing strategy, at the 90s the movie was based on the limited evidence we had, Jurassic Park aged just like other documentaries at the time, an artistic licence it's usually what saves scientifically obsolete content.
3:11 "we have to be careful that we don't portray them as heroes and villains..."
Haha whoopsie
There's an artist who came up with an image he called "Grizzly Rex" which not only puts dense feather fluff on the tyrannosaur, but gave it a grizzly bear color pattern.
These are my two fav carnivores please show immediately.
Yo, thank you, people who say fur-covered or feathered dinosaurs wouldn't be scary or intimidating don't know what they're talking about.
What a cool interpretation of T. Rex.
Finally someone who points out the blood inside the mosquito would be a mixture
fluffy/feathery Trex isn't properly accurate anymore though?
Hey Joe Bonsor and IGN. big fan loved the commentary, to the point of the dino's not having feather is present day. This was explained in the first Jurassic World film by Dr. Henry Wu, who stated that his dinos weren't really dinos in the first place and they would probably look very different because of his genetic tampering to bring them to life.
Who the hell designed that giganotosaurus. It looks like a godzillasaurus.
It looks like a crocodile
The lack of feathers or proto-feathers on the Jurassic World dinos is actually explained by Dr.Wu. He does say 'these aren't dinosaurs' Mutating the DNA changes everything.
They've mixed several tens of millions of years of species into one scene.
True but no one knows for sure as not every animal gets fossilized as jack horner even said T. rex could have around longer than they think
@@danielvasil1564 still doesn’t explain why we have North American dinosaurs fighting with South American dinosaurs.
@@B-rex395 its most likely rexy’s last movie plus dinosaur’s did swim or island hopped. And remember is this Jurassic world they said they will make the dinosaur’s more authentic not geology authentic
@@B-rex395 Movies aren't supposed to be 100% accurate.
@@danielvasil1564 You mean continental drift.
Giganotosaurus lived in South america(99-97 millions of years) and Tyrannosaurus lived in North America(68-65 millions of years), and Iguanodon in Europe and Africa (126-122 millions of years).
Smh of course they get the era wrong with the T Rex vs giganotosaurus even in the prologue. You had 1 job
As a Rex fan, that was a big *OOF* to us rex fans
I’m surprised he didn’t give his thoughts on the Dreadnoughtus.
the prologue should be the direction where jurassic world dominion ought to be heading showing intense conflict between dinosaurs and modern civilisations and everyday dealings with dinosaur intrusion upon the lives of average human beings not confined to some remote island but in busy metropolis and cities
Yeah, It was weird to see the Gigantosaurus with a Tyrannosaur since they lived millions of years apart as said...
Finally Jurassic Park has Dinos w/ feather/fur-like bodies than just the JP3 Raptors
I'm kinda sad...I thought it said dinosaur reacts and was hoping to see a dinosaur react to the movie. Also in one of the movies they mentioned the dinosaurs look different because of the frog dna they used to complete the DNA strands to make the dinos.
Mabye thats the next video?
... Which makes no sense in the Prologue since its meant to show non-cloned Dinosaurs.
@IapetusMC Eh, there are some deffinitive anatomical issues on some of the species shown in the segment, specially on models that were directly pulled from the previous films (Ankylosaurus, Pteranodon, T. rex)...
but this scene happens in the past, 65 millions years ago, they are supposed to be the real dinos, not the strange frog altered things they call "dinosaurs" in the movies
@IapetusMC aside from anatomical issues all of these dinosaurs lived in different regions at different times
6:38 I’m not sure about that. As far as I’ve seen, the Paleo community generally agrees that t.rex had either no feathers, the amount shone here or less.
Overall though, pretty great video. Well done.
They explained why every dinosaur in Jurassic Park looks different to real life scientific analysis already in Jurassic world. Dr Henry Wu explains that they are scientifically altered during the cloning process due to the mixing of the DNA with other species as well as the park owners wanting them to look more like what people expect dinosaurs to look like
The prologue is supposed to show the past though, not modern genetically altered dinosaurs
The thing is that Rexys probably didn’t even have feathers, only those who lived in very cold areas. But a T-Rex who lived in hot areas like mostly, would die if he had fathers because it would be way too hot
WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT IN THE ANIMAL WORLD....EVERYONE IS STARVING TO DEATH...YOU GAIN A NEW POV
except herbivores
props to the cameraman filming the trex and giga fight
There wouldn’t have been a fight between these two, even if they somehow met. Rex was incredibly aggressive and fossils show marks from fights between them and other rex. Giga and other larger carnivores didn’t have these. Then you get into a size/power level…Rex was a 10000 pound mass of muscle with a bite force 3x that of giga or any other land animal. Game over before it began.
Dude the reason we have so many rexes with injuries is because we have more skeletons of them, not because they are more aggressive
And rex used its bite force for crushing bone, not for fighting
The rex still would have been like twice as heavy as the Gita anyway, so biteforce doesn't matter.
The largest Trexes found were close to 10 tons that's like 19k to 20k pounds and having a bite force to match as well. This isn't just fanboying either, Rex had a lot going on for it being the most advanced & smartest large carnivore. It wasn't the longest but it was the strongest & bulkiest with a powerful bite
Lame you
I’m going to freeze myself. Wake me up when summer comes.
The fact one giant meat eating Theropod dinosaur existed 30 million years before another is beyond human comprehension. Imagine a different human species existing 30 million years ago. Dinosaur time scales are insane.
Well, it wouldn't really be a human species
It'd be a different ape hominid because at that point it's no longer human or even as close to related to us
@@TyrannoKoenigsegg Says who? That depends on our definition of human. There is no set time limit for a successful species. Sharks are virtually the same as their ancestors millions of years ago because it worked. T-Rex and Giganotosuras were still theropod Dinosaurs. Far closer related to each other than either are to a Crocodile or a Turtle.
@@alexojideagu Says anyone who knows a little bit about biology?
"Human" is defined as homo sapiens. Homo sapiens only exists for about 300k years. The earliest thing that could be considered "human-like" (but still very different from us) lived some 3-4 million years ago.
T-Rex and giganotosaurus aren't even in the same lineage, they lived half a world apart and T-Rex is not only 30 million years younger it evolved through a separate line of therapods, one does not descend from the other. Yes they are both therapods, and so are sparrows, how much do you think a sparrow has in common with a T-Rex?
You're pulling assumptions out of your arse. There is nothing genetically stopping an animal or humans remaining almost the same for millions of years if conditions are right. Evolution isn't a destination that can be predicted or governed by time. A chicken is the closest living ancestor of a T-Rex and both are therapod dinosaurs. A "Human" has no specific definition in nature. Infact some think Chimpanzees should be categorised as a human species.
@@BigUriel Actually “human” refers to Homo sapiens sapiens and all related Hominin species.
7:35 actually rexy was on Isla Nublar, Jurassic Park 3 was set on Isla Sorna, so that's a different t rex.
Kind of ignoring Biology Letters “Tyrannosauroid integument reveals conflicting patterns of gigantism and feather evolution”
You'd think the dinosaur expert would be up to date on findings. Then again, it does seem a lot of paleontologists argue for ideas they like rather than reality. Kinda like how Jack Horner seems hell-bent on making the Tyrannosaurus seem lame because he thinks it's overrated.
To be fair this design still falls in what the paper states as plausible: feathers on top of the back and neck. And it's very sparse here, nothing impossible about it. Combine that with the fact that the sediments Tyrannosaurus rex fossils are found in aren't able to preserve feathers, this is all quite okay.
All the rest is still very wrong though.
Thank you, this was informative and entertaining.
Making the first Ross Geller reference comment here🙄
In the movies, they explained that the modern T. rex has some genome gaps, which were then filled with modern amphibian dna, hence, the lack of feathers.
Giganotosaurus looked nothing like it does in Jw Dominion.
They already explained from the very first film that the DNA was incomplete so they used frog DNA and other reptiles to make up for it, even in Jurassic World Dr. Wu pointed out that if they were able to produce a 1:1 replica of the Dinosaurs all of them would look significantly different
The Pterosaurs are probably the best that have ever been in a big budget movie.
"No such thing as an evil animal"
Humans: "hold my beer"
@Bingo So you wouldn't call a human picking up a gun and shooting an elementary school for seemingly no reason, evil? (Which, in case you didn't know, has been happening a lot lately.)
@Bingo Except it’s not. You just can’t disprove my comment.
Just one single thing that annoys me is that trex most likely had no feathers. Yes, they may have had feathers as a baby but they would generally lose them whilst growing up.
We have next to no idea whether or not T. rex had feathers, and even less information to suggest they would lose them with age (a feature not known in modern birds). Based upon phylogenetic bracketing we would expect a downy coat of basic protofeathers for all tyrannosaurs. The skin impressions we do have show mosaic scales, however these impressions are not from depositional environments that would preserve feathers, also feathers and scales can coexist on birds today. At the moment all we can say is we don’t really know, and that there are reasons we could argue each way for a feathered or non-feathered T. rex.
@@Calumbw this guy dinosaurs
Yeah the “feathered Rex” inaccuracy bothers me too
if we go with "Giganotosaurus is misnamed Acrocanthosaurus" theory, the fluff on rex made a bit more sense. As Acro are smaller than both rex and giga so that rex might be a younger individual.
@@Mobius118 that is not a misconception. And even if it is, it still looks better than a boring scaly rex
*Giganotosaurus Fun Fact:* Coria and Currie (2006) note the majority of possible adult specimens known are comparable in size to the Giganotosaurus carolinii holotype (MUCPv-Ch1)which suggested these individuals were around 12.4 meters in length and 8320 kg, although not with the same exact proportions, having taller and wider neural spines, a more elongate fibula (101 centimetres compared to 98.5 centimetres) but more slender (81-89% the width as in MUCPv-Ch1) and with a differently proportioned skull that was deeper relative to its length.
Moreover, contrary to popular belief, these aren't the largest remains from the bonebed - a pubic shaft (MCF-PVPH-108.145) 10% larger than that of MUCPv-Ch1 suggests a maximum size of 13.6-13.7 meters long and up to 11100 kg. Some tibiae (MCF-PVPH-108.68-73) also suggest very large sizes of roughly 12.7-13.2 meters long and 8950-9880 kg.
*Tyrannosaurus Rex Fun Fact:* The most complete and largest Tyrannosaurus specimen is Sue (FMNH PR 2081) which was 12 - 12.3m long and 8265 - 8700kg according to paleontologists Asier Larramendi and Scott Hartman. Another Tyrannosaurus specimen dubbed "Scotty" is reportedly a bit bigger than Sue (13m and 9 tons) but no measurements are published at the moment and recently suggests it may have been actually smaller.
The Tyrannosaurus holotype CM 9380/AMNH 973 was 11.68m long and around 7 tons according to newer GDI by Larramendi, Paul 2020.
*Spinosaurus Fun Fact:* Spinosaurus may have had the largest theropod among all known carnivorous dinosaurs, much heavier than known specimens of T. rex and similar in size to or somewhat heavier than known specimens of giant carcharodontosaurids like Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus. The latest estimates suggests a weight of more than 12860 kg and a length of 15.8 to 16 meters for the 1 possible adult specimen (NHMUK R-16421) that can be estimated based on overlap with other specimens. Some other specimens (MSNM v4047, NMC 41852) may suggest similar sizes to these when they can be estimated from overlap with other specimens according to Ibrahim, Maganuco etc. Other sources for references are Spinoinwonderland, Getawaytrike.
The dinosaurs are as anatomically innacurate as their InGen version, but this prologue Is set 66 milions years ago.
So, for the creators of the film, these are the real Dinosaurs, and they are largely wrong. So the Dinosaurs in this franchise have always been innacurate, and the toad DNA excuse no longer holds.
Mfw toad dna argument finally dies
Yeah bro Lemme go back in time and get all the correct info for ya 🤗
@@vengeance3544 What...? The Giga and the Rex did not exist in the same era, how difficult is it to do a simple Google search? Lmao.
Joe Bonsor, the destroyer of dreams 8:18
“T-Rex always gets killed in the later films”
It was killed once. In 2001.
A trex ded in the both third movie of the franchise
@@lunathekuduruk1311
Huh?
@@gzz8551 in jp 3 a trex died, and in jw 3 another trex died too
@@lunathekuduruk1311 Pretty much two yeah, especially since this Rex in the prologue is technically not Rexy, rather an endeavor recreated to make Rexy
Glad to see so many other walking with dinosaur fans in these comments ❤❤❤
A lot of arm-chair experts in the comments section holding up the otherwise wonderful books/films as actual scientific reasoning for the many non-scientific holes and inconsistencies, which is the entire point of this video 🙄
So, ignoring those people, great video 🙂👍
You are ignoring these people while acknowledging that these people exist in the comment section lol
For those that don't know.. The T-rex on the Main Islands in all the movies... Park.... World... Fallen Kingdom.. and now Dominion.. all the same T-rex! All Rexxy.. Our girl is old! But we still love her!
How cool would it be if this film finishes with Rexy beating a Giganotosaurus in a fight and then standing over it and roaring just like it did with the Velociraptors at the end of the first Jurassic Park. A great way to close out the sequal trilogy!
My best guess about why the ancient trex in this had feathers and the one in the modern day one didn’t is because they mix reptilian, amphibian and aves/raptor genetics to fill in the genetic gaps for the dinosaurs for the park. These extra genes from present day animals might have had an impact on wether the dino’s had feathers when they were bought back to life
Me, with 50 hours on Ark: I’m something of dinosaur expert myself
They actually say why the T-Rex looks different in the first Jurassic World, with a reference to the original Jurassic Park. In Jurassic Park, we are told that they use Frog and reptile DNA to fill in the holes in the Dino DNA strains. In JW, Dr Wu says says that because of the added DNA, these Dinosaurs don't look the same as the ones that lived 65 million years ago.