Should Dinosaurs be Portrayed with Scientific Accuracy in Fiction?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июн 2018
- Accurate dinosaurs in pop culture are a rare sight indeed...but does that really matter?
DeviantArt: snazzychapeau.deviantart.com/
Novel: www.amazon.com/Operation-Red-...
Twitter: / omniandsnazzy
Chance, Luck, Errors in Nature, Fate, Destruction As a Finale by Chris Zabriskie is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Source: chriszabriskie.com/reappear/
Artist: chriszabriskie.com/ 
Кино
The idea to leave dinosaurs purposefully vague to never be inaccurate is actually pretty genius to be honest.
I loved watching walking with dinosaurs when I was younger , every Saturday morning
In Jurassic World, Doctor Wu gives an explanation for why the dinosaurs are not portrayed with scientific accuracy. He said that because the genetic coding used to create the dinos wasn't 100 per cent dinosaur and contained DNA from modern species, the dinosaurs looked very different from what they actually would look like.
People just don't want to listen to movie details. Instead, they whine about how Jurassic Park dinos are inaccurate.
Im reminded of a kids book where the story was "What happened to the Dinosaurs?" and it talked about all kinds of silly possibilities like they shrank, they put on disguises and are still among us, they turned invisible etc. ,
"Dinosaurs are extinct, they are dead"
*looks outside to a crow on the windowsill*
'I'm on to you feather f*cks...'
If the movie portrays itself as super scientific then they should, aside from that it doesn’t matter
There should be a level of scientific accuracy when depicting prehistoric life in any setting. But I otherwise agree with your sentiments.
Well the movie called dinosaur island (it’s not that popular or nearly as good as Jurassic park ) but it is more accurate and shows multiple dinosaurs with feathers and pterosaurs with pigmofibers.
But it still has inaccuracies.
But it at least tried and showed some effort.
"But it still has inaccuracies"
_Like their LGBT pride rex_
and its was still a pretty bad movie , adding feathers to dinosaurs well not change that fact
But at this point is got far more recognition than it would have for having them the way they were. Accurate dinosaurs didn't make it a "meh" movie.
the main boy character was kind of a dick
My opinion: If it's something that's trying to be realistic and accurate, yes.
If it's like Jurassic Park, where the very concept of bringing dinosaurs back to life is ludicrous, then no.
same
but that's also lead to another problem, since info about dinosaurs always keep being updated you can't escape that whatever you make about them would end up being outdated if you aim to accuracy
@@DevilRaptorB still would be accurate for the time, i mean you just cant put lazer beams in a dinosaur and say (buuuhh f4cts changssss)
that really depend, if you do the same to a tiger , its still a tiger, just not a realistic one
@@Visitormassacre if i'm not mistaken Dr.wu actaully told the kids in the novel that the dinosaurs aren't real dinosaurs, just a shadow of what they could have been, and yes it was in the novel that pre-date JP movies
i think if you at least try to be scientifically accurate it should be rewarded
and of course birds evolved from dinosaurs it was discovered in the nineteenth century
yes but it shouldn't be harshly punished if they don't go fully accurate.
@@taliesincoleman6569 my thoughts as well
I agree that dinosaurs should be represented with Scientific Accuracy in fiction,but NOT in the cases of movies where the animals in question are explained to have been mixed with other creatures like in the case the JP/JW universe.
I'm all for scientific accuracy, but you know what would be really cool? A prehistoric fantasy movie with people living with dinosaurs, like one milion years bc, but with modern effects
Or watch Genndy Tartakovsky's Primal. ruclips.net/video/V4UN616BFDA/видео.html
i agree. if you want to make a fantasy movie with dinosaurs you should make them recognizable and not go over board like give t-rex the ability to fly or make triceratops a meat eater something and if you want to make a accurate dinosaur film that has your "precious" real dinosaurs than make a documentary but mind you just like Omni said dinosaurs are always changing like in 5 years they might find something about t-rex that makes it a fish eater or something i mean the spinosaurs is a prim example.
Having finally watched this video, I do have some things I'd like to say as someone who's quite familiar with recent works of paleo-fiction and having interviewed multiple paleontologists on the Prehistory Traveler's Guide podcast this is a topic I've discussed on my show many times. For me personally, I won't crucify your ass if you have dinosaurs being killing machines eating people and terrorizing cities etc... I love my B-movies and books with B-movie style plots. That said, if you are writing a work of fiction, you can set whatever ground rules you want in terms of how the dinosaurs or other paleofauna look designwise and how you choose to have them behave. Some authors do stick to the Jurassic Park aesthetic for their dinosaurs, but it's been a trend lately I've noticed to have more scientifically accurate animals in their novels, i.e. feathered dromaeosaurs and the like since they are not bound to follow the rules of movies like Jurassic Park. The best recent example of this that I will cite is the soon to be Primitive War novel and anthology series by Ethan Pettus which actually succeeded in depicting dinosaurs as both terrifying man-eating monsters and normal animals doing regular animal things like defending territory, foraging for food, vying for mates, mating, and the like when not dealing with people. But I would definitely not give normal dinosaurs super powers or crap that we can reasonably say they didn't have in real-life, real dinosaurs would be intimidating enough without having venomous spit along with the usual tropes. Incorporating speculative behaviors based on scientific research like the tree-climbing Deinonychus in Primitive War actually adds to the horror elements since the general public would never stop to consider the idea that some dromaeosaur species were superb tree climbers. With some animals we do know in fact what their coloration was due to preserved Melanosomes and pigmentation preserved in some very well-preserved fossils. Prehistoric mammals are much easier to do accurately since we have so many modern analogues to work with, and for a lot of them we have DNA evidence ontop of cave art and so forth to determine what they truly looked like. Overall I agree with what you've said in the video and for Walking with Dinosaurs, it was indeed a gateway drug of sorts for paleontologists under the age of 30 or 40 I'd say at the least.
While I'm fine with no feathers in media it just really gets me with the theropod's hands
I don't know why but in the jurassic park movies the theropods always looked weird and cartoonish (especially with the spinosaurus and raptors) just because of their hands but we now know their hands faced inwards not outwards.
Again I don't know why but It always looked weird.
Especially the Skinnyness of the Head. and the Humanoid Muscles Arms and Legs and a Mantis Arm Position for the Arms. Short Tail for Long Tail Theropods. Too much Teeth Pose for Theropods Mouth. Giving them Cartoonish Angry Eyebrows, and Making them Too Lizard-like
Not to be a Troll or anything, but you guys do know movies have been doing that stuff before Jurassic Park, right?
Really great video. There's a lot of good, interesting opinions on the subject and hearing your opinion was really great. Personally, I'm fine either way. Like you said, fact and fiction in terms of dinosaurs is always changing, so finding one perfect representation, is going to be incredibly hard.
As always you make a very thought provoking argument. I didn’t even know that “Walking with dinosaurs” is now considered science fiction... that’s kinda sad since I grew up with that and have very fond memories. I agree with your general point though. If it is fun or dramatic, I don’t really care. I’m not watching things like Jurassic Park to learn after all.
Happy New Year Omni!
What I don't get is why people try so hard to force reality into a fictional franchise, if that franchise is supposed to be fake then it's fake it doesn't have to be real to be popular, you can base it off some real things but all of reality if it's not supposed to exist
Look in Jurassic park its to late to change its been 25 years
It’s matter what kind of movie it is, if it’s a scientific movie like Jurassic Park or a documentary about dinosaurs it have to be scientific accurate but if the movie is like King Kong or the land before time they can do anything they want.
Ah, “Fantastic Dinosaurs of the Movies”. Pure nostalgia, really, and kind of underrated, if you ask me. (Though it’s worth noting they play rather loose with the whole “dinosaur” part, including films whose monsters are mythological, alien, or radioactively mutated ants.)
Hmm... Hey, Omni, just had a thought: is there any chance you might want to review or examine some of those old trailers, like you do movie posters? They’re so different from modern trailers, I’m sure you could find a lot to say. ^_^
Dinosaurs deserve a big-time comeback within pop-culture, other than in Jurassic Park that is. Ever since the 21st century came about, they have been usurped by Superheroes and zombies.
That can be said about Kaiju films
I'm gonna save this to my favorite dinosaur videos playlist.
4:59 is my favorite quote said by one of my top 10 favorite RUclipsrs.
Can you Look at video game movies that are good or decent which includes live action anime and CGI?????
I'll be honest I love all types of dinosaurs and if I ever do decide to write some I will write them to my own interpretation of them since like you said dinosaurs change over every couple of decades. My favorite version of the T-Rex is the upright tail dragging type. Mainly because this was the first type of T-Rex I was introduced to and it just seems to be the coolest to me. Wow just imagine if Godzilla was an actual preacher and people start saying he had feathers can you pitcher a feathered Godzilla?
depends on the movie really. i mean if it benefits the story more then yes. however sometimes it's better to just have it be cool.
My opinion on the matter is that stylizing dinosaurs is that it's alright just so long as you don't lose what defines that dinosaur. In other words, we have skeletons and we can surmise musculature from said skeletons, you should at least get those parts of the animal as right as you possibly can. I don't think too many people realize just how much room for interpretation that still leaves open. These are all technically still Baryonyx, but they're all uniquely stylized Baryonyx.
dinoanimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Baryonyx.jpg
vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/isle/images/f/f7/Blue_Baryonyx_The_Isle.png/revision/latest?cb=20161217171207
4.bp.blogspot.com/-LHnIAFp1nw8/UP0aNrSW-FI/AAAAAAAAEHY/sU-mYC52-Ag/s1600/baryonyx.jpg
4.bp.blogspot.com/-LHnIAFp1nw8/UP0aNrSW-FI/AAAAAAAAEHY/sU-mYC52-Ag/s1600/baryonyx.jpg
pbs.twimg.com/media/DRC4X66VwAATuRY.jpg:large
In a way, you're right. Our uncertainty does leave room for error, though such leeway is a bit more restricted than you give it credit for (at least in my opinion). The way I see it, if you presented a creature with horns and hooves as a tiger, then people would call you on the fact that's not a tiger. However, if you lengthened the teeth *a little*, maybe made it slightly bigger, and perhaps gave the coat a different color while keeping the same general pattern, you'd be much more justified in calling it a tiger.
Or you could just make your own genera of dinosaurs... I guess you can really do whatever you want at that point.
I've said this to myself for a while, and I'll say it here: Dinosaurs don't have to look scientifically accurate in films, TV shows, video games, or books. Sure, they can if the writers want them to, but they can do whatever they want, regardless if it's accurate or not.
This is a topic I’ve ran into all time on the internet. I’ve met a man who flat out hated Jurassic Park just because the dinosaurs were inaccurate despite the fact that they’ve mentioned that these animals were heavily altered on the genetic level. Hell, he ignored every positive aspect of the film such as the the acting, story, visual effect, and the message about messing with nature itself. It really bugs me that someone would just throw an entire film away just because of it.
Now I personally welcome more accuracy when it come to these magnificent creatures. And if they’re inaccurate, I don’t mind at all. These creatures still bring awe and wonder regardless of their depiction.
If something is someone's career or passion, inaccuracy is annoying at best and outright insulting at worst because believe it or not, it makes their line of work harder. I say this as someone who works at a museum and as an educator, Jurassic World as a movie is good fun. Jurassic World's influence on how I can work, get my points across, and actually do my job is extremely annoying.
TazzReviews sorry, but im one of those people too
I don't know wither or not its true but I think before Godzilla 2014, there was concept art for Godzilla to have feathers.
That was a fan art.
Unless you are going for accuracy, then No, not necessarily, if you wanna portray scientificaly accurate Murder chickens (not meant in any spiteful way just being honest), then do that or if you wanna have big lumbering yet powerful tail draggers like the dinos of Ray Harryhausen, David Allen or something like the last dinosaur, then do it, Dinosaurs are awesome and we shouldent be held back from portraying them in different ways by what someone else might say, so i say Portray these Creatures as you will, Feathered giant chickens, great tail draggin reptiles, heck even Slurpasaurs, do what you feel is right for what you wanna do
Wait a minute. You decided to release a dinosaur themed video. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom comes out next week. Coincidence or perfect timing? Also do plan on making a franchise retrospect type of video focused on the Jurassic Park movies in the near future? To answer your question about how accurate dinosaurs should be depicted in fiction. All I say is that if people can identity the dinosaur that's all that matters.
I’m not complaining about accuracy. I think giving them feathers ads way more creative possibility. Have you seen a bearded vulture? Imagine a raptor with that feather pattern. I personally think feathered dinosaurs look cooler than non feathered dinosaurs. And while most facts about dinosaurs do change. But the fact that raptors had feathers is undeniable at this point
Tanner Bruning for the Real Life about the Versions of accuracy is unknown In reality In fresh
Luis Rivera what?
Tanner Bruning you will never know
Luis Rivera You're seriously grasping at straws.
That's literally like saying that we don't know of a Prehistoric lion had fur.
We found a whole slew of dinosaur fossils with feathers, and some so we'll preserved that we actually know the true color of those feathers.
Velociraptors of Skyrim only small ones have feathers but the big ones no
I was always frustrated with this argument whenever it came to the "Feather-Crowd" demanding that the aesthetic for a 20 year old film series (Jurassic Park) be drastically changed, just to appeal to their standard of science - when really it's not even theirs, they're just pretending in order to sound more intelligent and science-savvy.
The simple fact is...they're missing the point entirely and the films haven't done a good job of showcasing that point.
Michael Crichton always intended for the Dinosaurs to be unnatural as part of Mankind's misunderstanding and misuse of scientific power they couldn't understand.
Y'know how you used the clip of the first movie, with Grant claiming that the Rex could not see them if they remain motionless? That scene being in the movie was built on a complete misunderstanding of the source material. Grant doesn't know shit about the Rex's visual acuity in the book until that very scene where he is paralyzed with fear and the Rex loses track of him - although it still knows (or suspects) that he's there.
The Novel goes on to show Grant experimenting with the idea with a Hadrosaur while he and the kids are in a tree - remaining completely still, only giving the slightest movements; the animal not only can't see them when immobilized but ultimately forgets they were ever there to begin with.
Earlier on in the book - separated from Grant and the Survivors - Park Vet Dr. Jerry Harding, posts his theory as to why this is - claiming that the Dinosaurs of Jurassic Park have an "amphibian visual cortex." And considering that the animals were cloned using various types of amphibian DNA, it would make sense as to why this defect would develop.
In fact, the dinosaurs in the Novel were supposed to have all-kinds of genetic defects due to the amphibian DNA that were intentionally left-out of the movie. For example, the Raptors are supposed to have flicking-tongues - like lizards and snakes. And a juvenile raptor develops the ability to change its color, like a chameleon.
These are things we know that Dinosaurs can't do - and knew for sure even at the time of the movie - but Crichton included them in the story, because he wanted to show the unpredictable nature of the genetic engineering power InGen was playing with.
However, all of these elements were left-out of the movie, because of Paleontologist Jack Horner...
Now while it was important that Jurassic Park be the first "accurate" depiction of Dinosaurs in Film the world had ever seen, because of Horner's insistence that the dinosaurs be "real" and accurate, most of the commentary the book was making was left-out.
Hell, there's even a chapter in the book where Chief Geneticist, Dr. Henry Wu, argues with John Hammond about how the Dinosaurs of the park aren't real to begin with and how they're not perfect recreations of the past - thereby they should be open to be altered to be more controllable.
And while it's true that near the end of the Novel, the population begins working towards an "equilibrium", Crichton never intended for the Dinosaurs to peacefully exist in a natural state. Because they are unnatural; brought to life by irresponsible use of scientific power, into a world that is not ready to support them in any way.
You make a valid point. It was even explained in the third and fourth film that these dinosaurs were not real. While I think there could be a way to add in more accurate looking dinosaurs in the film, completely changing the design of these creatures and their certain features at this point would make no sense and just be ignoring the previous films and books.
And it was explained by Dr. Wu in Jurassic World that the executives wanted more popular depictions of dinosaurs for the visitors, and judging by the tone of Wu's speech to Simon Masrani, he secretly hated this idea ("you asked for more teeth!").
This has been a very timely question to me since the days of Jurassic Park 3. I ended up with the following philosophy that kinda resembles your's when it concerns presenting dinosaurs in fiction, only without any obscurity to it's interpretative presentation: why not have both? As in, both feathery and scaly(as well as everything inbetween) interpretations of the same creature coexistening in the same creative universe? While they can't represent an unanimously accepted image of a long extinct creature of reality they do offer something rather valuable: *variety* The more the merrier. :)
You do have a good point, but I wrote a film script last year that has a Spinosaurus in it and I decided that the Spinosaurus will be based on the design after the 2014 discoveries, such as it walking on four legs. If it does end up being inaccurate in the future...oh well, I wouldn't care.
I'm glad this video exist, because i felt like i was alone wondering why dino fan-base community are often make dinosaurs apparence accuracies a drama. You know, it getting irritating at some point!
I think it’s also worth noting that, unless we’re talking about specimens frozen in ice or cloned ala Jurassic Park, they wouldn’t be the same as they were millions of years ago. Species that had survived the extinction of the rest of the dinosaurs would have *evolved* as time went on. That’s why, for example, the dinosaurs in Peter Jackson’s King Kong remake don’t look quite right - *they’re not the originals*. They just evolved over time to look sort of like them.
I once made a 3 part book series called Primordial World where it takes place in an alternate timeline where Dinosaurs never became extinct. In the first book, it shows scientifically accurate looking Dinosaurs that witness the Meteor, only for it to miss Earth and crash land somewhere on Mars and then, millions of years later, my Dinosaurs in the books resemble how we viewed them in the 90's and mid 2000's, with a little bit of accuracy in them, and this includes broken wrists for some species. This is not just for drawing them to show how i view, but to show how they have evolved over millions of years. I even invented a sub species of Tyrannosaurus Rex that is much larger than the regular species known as Tyrannosaurus Daemonibus inita and they sort of serve as the main antagonists of the series.
I a Godzilla fan film I’m working it’s prequel story mentions Godzilla as a “Stegosaurus standing 300 feet tall”
Omi is one of the smartest minds on RUclips
If I were a filmmaker for a studio ( which is my dream ) you would be hired as a writer on the first day
Very well put. I agree with much of what you've said, and have even said it myself in the past. Fiction is fiction. And indeed, your advise at the end is quite true. I've made a short dinosaur comic recently, and depicted therein are pterosaurs with their hind limbs in a bat-like posture, and not a week ago, there's a case for this posture potentially being wrong. For the most part, though, much of it is speculative depictions based mostly on behavior. We are currently in the midst of a "Soft Renaissance" of scientific dinosaur depictions which embraces more room for speculation on the life appearance, and in particular, the behavior of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals. Have you heard of the book, "All Yesterdays"? If not, I strongly recommend scoping it out. Very thought-provoking.
All Yesterdays, huh? I'll have to look that up. Thanks for recommendation.
Personally, I'm fine with Dinosaurs being both fictional and scientific accurate. Though sometimes, Dinosaurs being fictional are more effective. For example, the Velociraptor in the JP movies and books wouldn't be as memorable had it been the real life feathered raptor. I have a interesting question: can Godzilla be a dinosaur, if so what kind?
maybe this can answer it
ruclips.net/video/DwAcUn390bA/видео.html
but in the movie : Godzilla Vs King Gaidorah 1991 they made it clear that he isn't a real type of dinosaur, but a complatly Fictional one called Godzillasourus
godzilla's not a dinosaur right
I get what your trying to say, but the whole "But facts change!" Is just an excuse. Walking with Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Park have very inaccurate by modern standards, but I would consider them a must watch for anyone starting to get into the real thing.
This video is just chocked full of misunderstandings about paleontology or dinosaurs in general. There are a multitude of undeniable facts about Dinosaurs in modern Science that completely undermines this argument.
For example, the reason we were so sure Tyrannosaurus had feathers is because every other member of the group it is in, Celourosauria, has feathers with evidence for Feathers. The Dromeaosaurids, the Ornithomimus, the Therizinosaurs, Birds, etc.
Even within the family group Tyrannosaurade, there are members with fossilized evidence for Feathers, like Dialong.
Another example is how we have actually discovered dinosaurs with preserved pigment cells so there is literally no arguing on how that dinosaur looked. Examples include Psittacosaurus and Microraptor.
Another undeniable fact is that it was the meteor that killed off the dinosaurs. The plauge theory has been long since debunked.
Undeniable being normal human speak for 'with an overwhelming degree of certainty'.
Sorry I have to call that out, but that's the point where science deniers will latch on and call out the scientists for not having every detail and therefore actually not knowing anything.
Other than that, I fully agree that by now, it's unlikely we'll get major revisions on the overall picture and all changes going forward will be in the details,
Stefan Pickel The funny thing is, with the examples I gave, specifically with Psittacosaurus and Microraptor, we do know every detail about their coloration.
I could go on but I would just be repeating myself.
To this day, you will still find paleontologists who do not agree with the majority, and they often have good evidence to support their cases. This includes the "undeniable fact" about the asteroid.
Paleontology is only as good as the people practicing it. When soft tissue was found in fossil specimens, the resistance which met the discovery devolved from healthy skepticism to shameful mudslinging so quickly it was almost instantaneous. The bird evolution theory was once supported only by the scientific radicals. Heck, don't even get me started on the Bone Wars.
It's easy to say we've got it right now and any future revisions will be minor at best. After all, we have more information today than people had yesterday. However, the people of tomorrow will no doubt have the same perspective about us.
Give it time. The next discovery that will upend everything we thought was set in stone will come when you least expect it, and who knows what facts you'll need to reconsider when that happens?
Omni Viewer Perhaps, but so far in two decades there has been very little change with how we view dinosaurs. The biggest change was the new appearance of the Spinosaurus.
were you actually paying attention to the video? he was talking about the Portray of dinosaurs in Fiction and the media, if you decided to make a story about dinosaurs and added a trex to the mix with feathers than how are you going to explain the lack of it in a sequel if that idea became outdated? if its a stand alone thing than its fine to a degree , but won't change the fact that its gana be based on outdated facts
Depends on the situation
Can I have a link to your novel? I wanna check it out
Simple answer, yes we should have more accurate and obscure extinct animals. Because the public has too many wrong ideas about extinct life.
Dinosaurs did develop into birds.
ThePsychoBear this is a fact.
That's an inaccurate term, it's like saying mammals evolved into bats or fish evolved into sharks.
YOU HAVE A KAIJU NOVEL!!!!!!!!!?
As long as Kaiju and real dinosaurs aren’t muddled in the science crap I couldn’t care either way. Plz no raptorization.
Amen dude. I agree
Plus, if King Kong and Godzilla are meant to be scientifically accurate in the first place, then they should have collapsed and died on land since the square cube law determines that a land animal their size would collapse under their own weight.
I can't help but feel like I'm partially responsible for this video...
Also the real villain of Moby Dick is the human obsessed with killing it, not unlike what we see in Kong Skull Island.
"Why not make up your own monster?" well that's not 100% possible, all Monsters we've ever imagined were based on real Animals. Godzilla is just another example of that.
And Jurassic Park allows itself an out since they're all genetically modified. With JW making it text that the modifications involved making them more ferocious, it wasn't just the D-Rex.
*I-REX
but yeah and even if you read the oringal novel they make the point that the dinosaurs are merely SHADOWS of their ancestors.
heck henry Wu basically says this: "the past is GONE, we can NEVER bring it back, what we've done is RECONSTRUCT the past, or rather a VERSION of it"
*_"Also the real villain of Moby Dick is the human obsessed with killing it, not unlike what we see in Kong Skull Island."_* What do you mean "not unlike"? Have you actually seen the movie? Col. Packard (Samuel Jackson), who had _just_ came out of the Vietnam war and feels defeated, shamed, and frustrated, becomes obsessed with killing Kong as an excuse to make up his own war that he thinks he could win to fill that void inside of him, regardless if he's putting other lives at risk.
I'm surprised you put Jurassic Park as a lower entry on the list than Gamera heck I'm surprised it wasn't like the original Godzilla and King Kong in that it was too obvious of a number 1 to be on the list.
Review all the JP movies
JW2 is coming out
JurassicAvenger/Goji14 it's already out man on the 8th
Make a video about dinosaurs in movies and cartoons
Yes
Only after a netflix remake of Jurassic Park (as close as possible to the novel). Then after can make them as realistic as possible. ;) at 1:35 In the book it explains that because of the mixture of frog DNA, the Trex's eyes (rexy) were more frog like. It was only Dr. Henry Wu that argued against it. The Trex was only a large portion authentic. Which they explain in the Lost World, that the Trex on the island Isla Sorna were newer and didn't have to same flaws as Rexy. We see this in the death of Dodgson's assistant when attempting to take Trex eggs from nest. He stands still, to which the Trex was more curious as to why the man was not running, until knocking him unto the ground. Even his assistant yells at Dodgson "you !$*@#" as he is eaten by the Rex, who thought it was true. Hard way to learn the truth.
1:33 even the movies went out of their way to call bullshit on that.
I Am the first one on here
Can you do a Atomic Roast on a Killer Snake Movie call King Cobra PS can you look at a Cartoon Show call Inhumanoids??????????????
While yes, the facts today may be debunked later, I think it's no excuse for making dinosaurs like in Jurrasic Park because of nostalgia. Jurrasic World can, because the series started way back when, but other works of fiction that base their knowledge of dinosaurs on Jurrasic Park don't get that excuse.
I think your missing the point of JP than, its not about keeping nostalgia, its about being faithful to the whole message and idea of JP series in which it was about a mad man who played god and made dinosaurs with other animals DNA
I think they should. Modern animals aren't portrayed as fuzzless, because a bear without fur is horrifying. Imagine if dinosaurs lived today, we would of course portray them accurately. I think that for the most part we should stick to be as closely factually accurate as we can. However, for every 5 accurate depictions of dinos, i think 2 can and i would encourage to be innacurate, as to not lead the public into thinking they are boring.
Depends
YES! THIS IS FOR THE KIDS CHANNELS IN RUclips!
I think it should be up to whatever the artist wants them to be like, unless it's meant to informative. But, at least, unless given a good reason why not, I think they should obey the laws of physics, be the right size, and act like real animals.
Jurassic Park is the biggest offender to all three. Pteranodons would not be able to pick up a human being and fly. Mosasaurus isn't the size of Godzilla's thigh. And a T-Rex and most other animals wouldn't leave big triceratops breakfast to chase after three scrawny humans.
MartianManFromMars the mosasaurus is only 60 feet in the first Jurassic World now it is oversized in Fallen Kingdom but it definitely isn't as big as people say it is.
Love your channel, but what about birds? They’re dinosaurs.
Technically birds evolved from Dinosaurs, and are not entirely the same.
As I put it, the first Dinosaurs evolved from reptiles, but they're not in the same category. The same can be said for all animals: mammals came from reptiles, but are not called reptiles. Reptiles came from amphibians, but are not called amphibians. Amphibians came from fish, but are not fish.
Yes, my comment is very repetitive, but you get my point.
I'm off track. If the story is following a series of events for characters to go through, then the depiction of any living creature is mostly invalid. If the story is closer to a documentary, then yes any living creature should be completely accurate.
The whole “T-Rex didn’t have feathers” crap came from news articles taking quotes from a scientific study out of context about scale impressions for T-Rex. For more information: here’s a link to a video that goes more into detail on it: ruclips.net/video/CxE68c9rYa0/видео.html
Well, there's a response video to this video: ruclips.net/video/Y89wkWYOXgI/видео.html Based on the evidence we currently have, T. rex either didn't have feathers or had a minimal amount of feathers. Additional sources: www.researchgate.net/publication/317384776_Tyrannosauroid_integument_reveals_conflicting_patterns_of_gigantism_and_feather_evolution figshare.com/collections/Supplementary_material_from_Tyrannosauroid_integument_reveals_conflicting_patterns_of_gigantism_and_feather_evolution_/3787391 markwitton-com.blogspot.com/2017/06/revenge-of-scaly-tyrannosaurus.html paleo-king.deviantart.com/journal/Are-retro-90s-Tyrannosaurs-making-a-comeback-685174289 paleoking.blogspot.hu/2017/06/were-scaly-t-rex-paintings-of-90s-right.html?m=1 paleosir.deviantart.com/journal/The-fuss-about-Tyrannosaurid-feathering-687224352 105697.deviantart.com/journal/Tyrant-Tantrums-Part-II-Skin-n-Feathers-n-Scales-687705922
It depends on what media. If you want them to be Bible accurate. Go ahead. Do it. If you want to do it with a classic style then go on a head. If you want your dinosaurs to be giant kaijus. Well Godzilla is a dinosaur kaiju sooo no problem. Basically I just wanted to say that it depends on the media.
Only I have agree with Omni Viewer what he said about these details nonetheless.
Some good points were made in the video, but it would be better if every fucking modern dinosaur movie didn't feature the same jp - looking dinos ;-;
LoL destroy all monsters is my favorite showa movie
If the dinosaur has evidence to support it was feathered then it should be portrayed with feathers. But if the dinosaur didn't have feathers and doesn't really evidence then it's portrayal shouldn't really have feathers. Plus the reason why the Jurassic Park franchise hasn't give feathers to all the dinos is because of the canon and in the Dangerous Game comic, the Raptors are shown feathered. Look, use the current info and evidence at best for true accuracy.
even than, adding feathers won't make the dinosaur accurate, thats like taking a bold eagle and making its feathers all black up to it's head and calling it accurate.
To be honest, the Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park to Jurassic World will never be out dated either, why? Well if you read Michael Crichtons original Novel Jurassic Park, you’ll know that the dinosaurs are merely shadows of their true selves. Hell even in the film when Ellie and Hammond are talking in the table scene, Ellie states that it’s all an Illusion in response to Hammonds first attraction, a Flea Circus. In context the Circus is the Dinosaurs.
Except you got multiple characters using the lines, "Real dinosaurs" "Actual dinosaurs" and "Blue is a pure specimen" in the latest two movies that give the implication these ARE accurate dinosaurs.
Yeah and Hammond spared no expense despite the fact he obviously did spare a lot. The same goes for the dinosaurs, Even though they call Blue "Pure Specimen" If you go to certain websites, like the Jurassic Park Wiki, or even the Jurassic World website, it'll state that Blue and her other siblings are made up of different animals. They've filled these dinosaurs so much, that they are only an image, nothing more or nothing less. in Jurassic Park 3 Alan Grant specifically said "What InGen created were theme park monsters, nothing more nothing less" even in Jurassic World Henry Wu even states... "Nothing in Jurassic World is Natural! We have always filled gaps in the genome of other animals, and if their genetic make up was pure! Many of them would look quite different, but you asked for more teeth" In other words, nothing was real in the Jurassic Park or Jurassic World Franchise
Except again, that one line is countered by the films parading the idea these are true to life dinosaurs and NEVER showing us an accurate one to demonstrate the difference. With all the progress in genetics by time of Jurassic World, Wu very, very easily could have made a pure dinosaur but was asked not to with the Indominus. And because we have no real comparison, there is nothing for the audience to see and go "Oh okay, so the ones in the movies other than this one are mutants".
Instead, they had shown only the inaccurate ones and given more likes of them being "real dinosaurs" and "pure specimens" with not a single mention of the viral marketing material talking about Blue having monitor genes. What we are left with is outside of a few genetic tweaks, dinosaurs look like how they do in Jurassic Park's franchise. If the franchise tried to show otherwise, it failed.
Exactly, and because of this, These aren't real dinosaurs, even though they say they are. Ever heard the phrase, how much can you replace parts for a car until it's not the same car anymore. Same applies to the dinosaurs. Sure they say that they are real dinosaurs, however Spielberg and Micheal Crichton hint at the fact that they aren't.
Tarbtano no no no remember Wus discussion with Masrani there you go now shut up.
It's not The fact that it's inaccurate that truly bothers me, it's the fact that adding feather can give a lot more creative liberty in terms of feather patterns and Design, you can give it the feather patterns of A Eurasian Eagle Owl to Deinonychus or go nuts and go for a the Coloring of a Tragopan Pheasant or even a Jumgle Fowl instead of bland and Boring scales. While yes, New discoveries will make previous depictions inaccurate but there will be some that stay consistent throughout the years, like we all know dinosaurs like Carnotaurus and Triceratops aren't feathered due to found Skin coverings of them and Dinosaurs like velociraptor and Yutyrannus were feathered due to quill knobs found on A velociraptor arm bone and feathers being found on a Yutyrannus fossil.
Personally, I don't mind the inaccuracies in the Jurassic Park/World franchise and Walking with Dinosaurs. On the other hand, I DON'T like Jurassic Fight Club and Monsters Resurrected.
Also, if people complain about kaiju not being scientifically accurate to the animal they're based on, then I will remind them that if they are real and scientifically accurate, they should collapse from their weight and die due to the square cube law.
personally i find it cooler when dinosaurs are accurate in movies. Seeing featherless dromeaosaurs is honestly lame.
What is the name of the animation at 2:50. I don't care if it's scientifically accurate it looks cool.
I think its called :Turok: Son of Stone
I dont give a shit about the JP Copycats men, like, the unrealism of Mantis arm position, Humanoid Muscles, too Retilian, Catoonish Angry Eyebrows, Mammalian Lips Anger, More Retro Monsters design, less Animalian and Psychopath Coco-Crazy Killer Lizard/Crocs
@@bielbarcellos_commenter you do realize these are genetically modified and are fictional right?
@@destroyahthedemontitan4454 yes, also that comment is old, now i'm ok with JP inGen's Genetic Archosaurs, and i like the JP inGen Raptors, there are cool
Finally. The dinosaur video we needed. Thanks for that, Omni Viewer.
Ok you make some good points, but I will never lose the stance of believing these creators having the responsibility to properly depict these animals no matter how dead they are. I don’t care if they will become outdated, but with our recent discoveries we are severely closing in on an area where they wont be changing all that drastically, therefore reducing the obsoleteness worry. And its not like its going to dramatically reduce sales for a 20 year old film just because its outdated. And while these incorrect depictions cant hurt the dinosaurs, they can hurt the science and people that work around it. Accurate depictions have the potential to inspire and motivate whole new masses to support the science and research of dinosaurs. Thats my stance on this whole shitfest.
not really at all, we still far off, we don't know the skin colors or feather colors of dinosaurs, we build that on assuption, nither do we know the sound they make , or how they would react to human
DarkLizerdGuy no we know the color of psittacosaurus, microraptor, sinitharosaurus, anchiornis that's what I know but I'm pretty sure there's more.
you have to bring a prove for that
DarkLizerdGuy you don't even have proper grammar why should I trust you anyways no I don't look it up buddy.
you don't even have a proper RUclips channel, Why Should I trust you? or trust any random source on the internet? Sorry, I trust my own eyes buddy.
It depends, i wouldn't mind if dinosaurs are portrayed as fictional or scientifically accurate. As long as they have a personality LOL
Hell, if you really think about it, the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park shouldn't even look like dinosaurs, but some weird bird/frog mutant thingies. Plus, with movie monsters like Godzilla, it's a bit of a moot point, since Godzilla isn't even a real dinosaur. His design is chimera of three different dinosaurs crossed with crocodilian skin and nuclear holocaust.
Gorosaurus and Titanosaurus are the most inaccurate depictions of their counterparts it's not even funny.
If you want to have scientifically accurate dinosaurs, watch or make a documentary or write a book or novel based on that subject. Scientific accuracy is not always the point of everything. Especially in the case of Jurassic Park. The point of the first film and World is about what happens when we play God. Not to mention that making it scientifically accurate now would screw up the consistency within the Canon of the series(sort of like JP3 tried to do, and look how that turned out).
It wouldn't screw up consistency. They're genetically modified animals, it's as easy as saying they are using birds to complete the genome
Gojiratheking106 yes it would if the dinosaur was one from the first films, like Rexy for example.
No one is asking to suddenly change Rexy. What we want is to get new dinosaurs with feathers, like it's as easy as introducing Biosyn and saying they add birds instead of frogs
Gojiratheking106 yeah screw a good story and consistency we want feathers you people really get on my nerves a lot.
Bennett Fender Why are feathers and a good story mutually exclusive?
the Jurassic park t rex is accurate and the raptors are deinoychus wich is a bigger raptors so um yeah
Bob the T rex in jp is not accurate at all
For the Versions Of The accuracy Creatures like the Theropod Dinosaurs with feathers Is unknown to me and The real life in fresh better the scientists better build a Damn Time machines to check feathers and how they looks like ugh -_-
To me Dinosaurs is a Dinosaurs sorry science
we dont need to theres now alot of fosilized feathers now an a good amount of dinos
The Bronze Tank
Sorry I prefer the scary ones thanks for Them open to GODZILLA and The Pop culture of The Universe of The Dinosaurs
utah raptors are way scarier than trexes they are fast sleek efficient and deadly
The Bronze Tank oh ok
don't convince me about that ok by myself only I agree with Omni Viewer so go to the Age Of Dinosaurs In time machine for all accuracy Versions of Paleotology I choose scary ones inspired by Nosferatu and Scales no obligation questions please.
Luis Rivera i guess you think JP is real science?
WHAT how is waking with dinosaurs science fiction the only problem with it in realism is how most of them don’t have feathers but it was mentioned in it
A lack of feathers is far from the only issue.
OVER SIZED LIPURODON. even back then it was inaccurate.
Abd the hilariously small tail for the T-rex.
Not a slam on Omni or anything, but more me noticing something I didn't pin down before from the other side of their debate. In hindsight after 4 field trips I can also pin something else down. People don't like when the movie and reality collide. After spending years demonstrating faulty depictions I have never seen a fully positive reaction. When I demonstrate something akin to Blue not being a Velociraptor or raptors being feathery, the reaction is either people upset I "ruined the fun" or upset the movie lied to them and didn't reflect reality. Sometimes it's full on anger, sometimes it's annoyance. But not one positive reaction to them asking me and I setting the record straight in the museum.
There are many things unknown in Paleontology, but there are many things that are definitely true. And sadly, the JP franchise's stubborn refusal to make use of defined facts since movie 2 has resulted in these flaws. I wouldn't want full realism, not feesible in Hollywood that can't even get real life animals right. But showing some updates shows effort I find lacking and causing more annoyance than it needs to.
that Can't happen with JP, they need to keep consistency with the Raptors design , they can only do otherwise if they choose to reboot it, but than if they are going to be more faithful to the original source which is the novel they wouldd make Raptors even more reptilian , JP series is about genetic engnireeing, it can't be 100% accurate, it's like if I decided to make a story about genetic engnnered Lions but than the final result is about 100% lions, which makes the whole idea fall apart
They actually could have changed things multiple times. Consistency is something that hasn't been in the franchise since past movie 2. Since then we've seen the same genera of dinosaurs we've seen before go through revised looks, proportions, and sounds multiple times. Pteranodon looks different in every single movie, going from sharp beaks with blue-and-yellow hides to blunt beaks with teeth and orange-and-black hide to sharp beaks without crests and red and grey hide. The Raptors have changed virtually every movie since TLW, who's tiger striped one at least had the excuse of being males. Brachiosaurus looks different in movies 1, 3, and 5. Stegosaurus went from bright colored with (accurate) beaked faces and erect tails to dull colors, having lips and dragging tails in movie 5. The Dilophosaurus statue in movie 5 and cut concept pieces look nothing like they do in movie 1. The Mosasaurus keeps changing size from 60 feet in JW to 80+ feet in FK. And many more.
JW was a case of them having over a decade to refine the cloning and engineering techniques. They very, very easily could have fixed up the raptor's appearance. The entire part of the splicing in the first movie was because the DNA had gaps and they had to fill them. 10 more years to get more material and refine the process could very, very easily result in healthier, more complete genomes. One of the raptor squad was outright stated to have more bird DNA and yet, they still stubbornly refused to put in feathers.
It's not about consistency, it's about doing what they think is marketable for 2010s nostalgia.
Also your genetic engineering excuse doesn't work as the films now are going out of their way to repeatedly call the animals "Real dinosaurs". No more "Theme park monsters" talk we got in movie 3. They insist these are true to life animals and they are anything but.
adding feathers isn't going to make them more accurate either, that is like taking a cassowary and give it ostrich feathers and than call it accurate.
Actually we have splendidly preserved feathers on numerous genera and have figured out the trends present in certain families so we can accurately ascertain which families had what style of feathers or scales with great accuracy even before such discoveries are made, which only vindicate what was thought. Dromaeosaurids are one such family where every single Dromaeosaurid feather arrangement found thus far is essentially the same with the only differences being size of the animal. We've even been able to pin down color on several genera.
Also your Ostrich-Emu comparison is faulty because Ostriches and Cassowaries have extremely obvious skeletal differences that account for why their feathers differ. Ostriches have very large, muscular arms, two toes, S-shaped necks, and broad beaks. Cassowaries have pointed beaks, absolutely tiny arms with claws, three toes, and straighter necks. By comparison Deinonychus (the species in the JP series) is very similar to Microraptor, a very well preserved feathered dinosaur, with the only real differences being size and build with identical digits, limb proportions, etc.
And one doesn't need total accuracy, but reflecting the scientific understanding is something that avoid a ton of issues while still leaving some room for speculation and creativity. Any feathers at all is infinitely better than scales on raptors. Saying feathers wouldn't make them accurate is like me saying putting fur on a naked, frog-skinned tiger makes it worse somehow.
Raptors had feathers, proof positive, open and shut case. Giving them scales is so out of the norm for them one might as well stick fur on a fish, scales on a bear, and jellyfish tissue on a crocodile. Not only do we have a very good idea of what said feathers looked like, as many fossils show the same thing in that family, but any feathers at all is better than what has been given.
do you really have to write the long story of your life every time you reply to someone? can't you like make it short and simple?
when I brought the Ostrich-Cassowaries comparison it was more about everything including the colors of the feathers, have you seen the peacock skeleton? there is no way to know based on fossils of how it looked like, if you want 2 similar birds than you got the Golden Eagle and Bold Eagle , if you took the golden eagle and made its feathers all black than thats not an accurate golden eagle, feathers or not, if it is just the basic Idea of dinosaurs having feathers than it's fine if you are talking about documentary .
but if its JP than how would it be fair to alienate the die-hard fans of JP who comes to see to JP for being the only place now that still have the nostalgic design of Raptors, in other words, and as a JP fan myself , I Don't want to see fully covered in feathers Raptors in JP, its bad enough that the scientists took the older vision away from me, don't spread that kind agenda in JP please, I could care less what the public knows, it's their own fault if they can't take 5 min to hop on google and search accurate dinosaurs
You can answer the title by a yes because this is fiction. But some of this point are weird....how non avian dinosaurs being extinct is opposite to birds evolving for some of them.
Finally, a guy who is actually using his head, this video is pretty much what every paleonazi/Feathernazis needs to see before whining about dinosaurs in Fiction, pretty much what I was trying to tell so many of them
Omni I really like you and your work, both video and books, but this honestly disappointed me. I work at a museum and 95% of the questions I get are fixing pop culture inaccuracy. From raptors with feathers, dinosaurs being vicious brutes, T.rex having vision problems, and Dilophosaurus having a frill. One big part with dinosaurs is using them like this CONSTANTLY messes up the ability for public to understand how Paleontology works. Think of how many people deny evolution and get to influence education, affect public perception.
People like Ken Ham get to abuse the public perception of dinosaur to push forward his agenda. If you go to his "museum" or use his home school material, dinosaurs never had feathers, looked just like they did in Jurassic Park, ad were basically dragons. He uses this to influence impressionable children and families to make a profit and make them distrust scientist as the enemy. He argues science can never make up it's mind about dinosaurs and has been wrong before so we shouldn't listen to them. Sound familiar? You two come from completely different stances, but the argument in the end is very similar.
Besides, while there are debatable topics, there are some that are undeniable. T.rex's feathers actually are as the very paper talking about the scales was adamant the feathers were there, but one that is undeniable is the raptors. Every.Single.Dromaeosaurid had a very extensive coat of feathers. Not only could this look terrifying and lead to cool monster designs, but we even know what sort of feathers went wear to give elaborate designs. There also are types of Dromaeosaurids that are the size of, or even bigger than Velociraptor is in Jurassic Park. Plus if people saw just how bird-like they were, the fact of them being related to avians would become far more obvious.
Basically what I'm getting at is there is always wiggle room for accuracy, but being accurate and being entertaining are not mutually exclusive. Jurassic World's raptors very, very easily could have been feathered Utahraptors/Achillobators/Dakotaraptors/Deinonychus and both looked great, looked scary, and been more accurate. But they chose not to because of your arguments. Now another generation thinks dinosaurs were all big scaly monsters and the entire concept of them being bird like has delayed again.
I don't believe my video and Ken Ham's statements do reach the same conclusion. Yes, we both say that the facts about dinosaurs are always changing. However, Mr. Ham says this so as to bolster what he says as scientifically true, whereas I am applying it to the realm of fiction. That is an important difference. I still believe fiction writers should put emphasis on that which is best for the story.
Are you familiar with the movie TOP GUN? There is something it has in common with the first JURASSIC PARK film: it had expert consultants on hand during production, in this case, military consultants, many on active duty at the time. In the behind-the-scenes content, it is revealed that there were multiple times said consultants would pull the directors aside and tell them that the shot being set up was not how it would be done in real life. The reply was always something to the effect of, "Maybe so, but that's not what Mom and Pop in the theater want to see." The directors were making a movie, and thus set things up to be cinematic. When the consultants finally saw the finished film, they admitted that the cinematic-yet-inaccurate scenes were much better for the film.
TOP GUN deals in things far more concrete and undeniable than anything in paleontology: it deals with the United States Military, an organization with rules, techniques, and technologies still in use to this day. However, TOP GUN is not really about the Military. It is a character study which uses the Military as a backdrop to tell its story. As such, concessions had to be made to reflect the themes and character arcs, and even those who would be sticklers for accuracy agree that it works.
Compare this to JURASSIC PARK. It has dinosaurs in it, yes, but it is not really about dinosaurs. It is about Chaos Theory and scientific ethics, finding the line between Einstein and Frankenstein. As such, it uses dinosaurs to this end, exploring concepts which are unknown and unpredictable with creatures that are unknown and unpredictable. Indeed, many of the inaccuracies are presented in both book and film as discoveries made during the cloning process. Listen to the narration as the tour passes by the Dilophosaur pen: it refers to the venom as a new discovery, something which was unexpected. It may not be true to life (as far as we know), but it serves the themes of the story: man thinks he has control, but what he is dealing with is even more dangerous than he first believed.
You say JURASSIC WORLD could have updated the dinosaurs easily. I disagree. You may recall that in JURASSIC PARK III, the Raptors actually were given feathers. Not a full covering, true, but feathers were nonetheless added, as were nasal ridges. In theory, this was a step, however small, towards greater scientific accuracy; in execution, it became just one more thing people disliked about the film, a change that made the Raptors look ridiculous. Now, JW has thus far made a point of ignoring everything JPIII did, so goodbye feathers and ridges, hello scales and streamlined snouts. That is what works for cinema. Even if the feathers had been added, though, the Raptors would still have likely been kept at their six-foot stature, meaning the scientific accuracy would have only extended so far anyway.
Furthermore, the lack the feathers is also a matter of internal consistency. Every good work of Science Fiction and Fantasy has a set of universal rules and constants which are adhered to. The first three films established that the large, featherless, hyper-intelligent monstrosities bred by InGen are Velociraptors. They are not Utahraptors, Dakotaraptors, or any other type of dromeasaurid; they are unambiguously Velociraptors. Now, had a retcon been made in THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK about how they were misidentified and were subsequently given a new name which applied from then onward, that'd be a horse of a different color, but such is not the case. Four movies going on five say these are Velociraptors, ergo this is what Velociraptors are in the JURASSIC PARK universe. To change that now for any reason, even scientific ones, would just cause unnecessary confusion and frustration.
As I said in the video itself, I believe that people choosing to accept fiction over fact is not really the fault of he who made the fiction. I brought up J.D. Sallinger and CATCHER IN THE RYE. That book inspired people to do far worse than think T-Rex had bad eyesight; it inspired people to commit cold blooded murder. Is that Sallinger's fault? One could argue that if the book had never been written, the murders which it inspired would never have occurred, but that is very nearly the same as calling for all art to be censored. After all, who knows what might happen if the wrong people get the wrong idea from any particular work? The only way to guarantee that art won't influence anyone is to either ban it entirely or set so many restrictions on it that all meaning will be lost. I say, however, that Sallinger cannot be blamed for the murderous actions of others, nor can Michael Crichton and Steven Spielberg be blamed for what people choose to believe about dinosaurs.
Perhaps you ought to try looking at things a bit differently. You seem to express frustration with how most of the questions you are asked as a museum employee require fielding misconceptions about dinosaurs perpetuated by movies. I see it as people being inspired by art to seek out knowledge about the real thing, thus providing you with an opportunity to educate them. No one has ever begun a journey of understanding with the correct facts already in mind; rather, they go to teachers and experts to help them separate the true and the false. Why not view it in that capacity? You may find the symbiosis between fantastical fiction and grounded fact is greater than first perceived.
It's not a matter of the same conclusion Fair Mr. Omni, but a matter of the result having unforeseen consequences. Mr. Ham is just one example of it. An end result of the symptom bolstered by the action taken. Due to public perception of dinosaurs, mistrust, anger, and annoyance has been levied against people honestly just trying to do the right science. Do you recall the outright hatred some scientist got and scorn from the public when they so much as dared state T.rex didn't look exactly like how the movies make it out to be? I did. I also recall the public reaction to the scale impressions being found. The popular articles didn't give a rat's ass about the fact the scales were found where we already knew feathery species had them, or the fact they were avian scales, or the fact the very paper studying them blatantly stated any feathers would have been on another spot on the body. Instead we had people cheering the "death" of feathery dinosaurs and showering pictures of JP's star.
The public has been given scaly, dragon-like movie monsters and that is all dinosaurs are to them. When scientist say otherwise, they get ignored or even lambasted for "ruining the fun". This in turn gives people like Ken Ham ammo to use as they give the public what they want. His Creation "Museum"? Not a single feathered animal in sight and bold claims of the now over three dozen genera confirmed to have feathers are not real. It also degrades public interest as it causes people to rapidly lose interest in anything that isn't exactly like their movie monsters.
I've had people express shock, scorn, or disdain for me showing them the accurate image over their movie monster and the dinosaur-bird connection, something that has been well scientifically supported since the 1860s, is still met with contention from the public because their perception is so warped.
This is where part of the Top Gun comparison falls off. Top Gun is inaccurate, but you'd be hard pressed to find many military men and women who loathe or get very much annoyed by the film. Because it portrays the military as awesome and exciting. I think you'd be similarly hard pressed to find many pilots who argue the film should have had more mountains of paperwork and hours of garbled radio chatter like real life military flying has. Trust me, my father is a retired airforce pilot and he himself told me this about it. They show the movie regularly at parties.
Drastically inaccurate dinosaurs by comparison make them out to be violent, brutal, reptilian monsters and this can sow the seeds of misconception and misinformation. And when people start to distrust when scientists tell them the truth about something, they stop listening. I am told I am extremely friendly person in real life and I've worked with public and kids for years. This has happened often and it's only gotten worse with Jurassic World.
I have watched all Jurassic Park media, read the Crichton novels, and am a fan of the series even if I have my gripes. I have extremely familiar with public reaction to the series and the fan base. I have not heard once that someone made a big stink about the JP3 male raptors having feathers. JP3 had issues, from the reshoots, the Spinosaurus vs. Tyrannosaurus fight angering people, the cast, but I have never heard anyone say they disliked the movie due to the new designs. In fact with Jurassic World giving us a "Raptor Squad" (one of which I will note has the JP3 nasal ridge) and new genetic samples, I've actually only heard a push to bring back the JP3 look. The new Jurassic World Evolution game just came out to massive sales and one thing I hear very often is the desire for one of the unlockable skins to make the raptors in-game look like the JP3 variant after one came close. Also, those raptors have the nasal ridge back.
Here's the thing. I feel you treat accuracy and moving making potential as mutually exclusive. They are not. The T.rex is accurately posed at a time many people thought they still walked in tripod stance, the Stegosaurus doesn't drag it's tail in The Lost World, and the Pteranodon in JW are females and correctly have only small crests. I don't expect photorealism because that is impossible, I do expect them not to be lazy and show off the best variety these amazing creatures had to offer as it could be a huge crowd pleaser.
Take one dinosaur recently shown to the franchise, the Baryonyx. The Baryonyx's key features is it has a long, crocodile-like snout, two crests near the eyes, and large arms with very large thumb claws. It looks terrifying, visually distinct, and could make for an amazing action sequence where it menaces a character with its massive claws for which it is named for. And yet in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, the Baryonyx is inaccurate and looks worse because of it. It has a very genetic Theropod head with barely a notable, extremely wide, almost alligator-like snout, no crests, and tiny arms with barely noticeable claws it never uses. Basically, they took one of the most distinct Theropods ever and made it extremely generic. Still a decent scene, but it makes one wonder why they even bothered to use it to begin with. They actually had to include a line "See, not a T.rex?!" just to show this was something new as the creature is barely noticeable as Baryonyx. And the worst part is they had a good design practically gift wrapped to them as the viral marketing for Jurassic World had a vector art of Baryonyx that was both accurate and visually distinct.
They broke their own canon to give us a poorer design that make one wonder why they even bothered with the species if they were going to retcon it to something so indistinct.
And here's where your consistency has a flaw. JW and JW:FK are NOT consistent with either each other or the previous films, which are all still canon. The Stegosaurus in The Lost World had a good action scene, a good design that was both accurate and quite distinct. The Stegosaurus in JW/FK had a half-dragging tail, blander colors, got a lot fatter, and in FK it suddenly grew lips over its beak it lacked in both JW and TLW.
And now bear in mind the Raptor Squad's look in JW. They were made to try and look different but aside from Blue, due to screen time, they all flub on that because they're all bland shades of slightly different colors. These were newly cloned animals and with refined techniques. They just as easily could have made them "pure strains" (like they claim in the films) and given them feathers that both make them easier to tell apart and be something new. Heck, you could even hammer it home by having the out-of-touch Hoskins comment on the feathers and show he expected them scaly, showing he's out of date. Or, just have one or two of them be feathery with the rest scaly, balancing old and new.
Also, location, side material, sources, and who Michael Crichton talked too pretty much confirm the reason the JP raptors are so big is they are mis-classified Deinonychus. It's been that way since the beginning and concept art even exists for the film showing them under the correct name. So their size actually isn't off by much if one shifted the name back. The problem was the source Crichton used called them both Velociraptor and to hammer this home, Grant even has a line in the books saying, "Deinonychus is one of the Velociraptors now". In the JP universe, the misclassification was just never corrected. So they've always been Deinonychus.
You're right on the end to a point, but my point wasn't for the people who come to the museum, find out the truth, and leave with a smile on their face. I'm referring to every angry person I've had to deal with who gets upset when I showed reality was not like fiction, either angry at me for showing their fantasy wasn't quite right or angry at the filmmakers for steering them wrong. If you get asked the same question 1,000 times and give the answer every time, you have to admit it starts getting grating. I am a cheery person, I like to make people happy and entertain them. I have loved nature and Paleontology since i was a littlun', and I say this with the utmost honesty. Scaly raptors annoy me because to me, it shows lack of care about the very subject the filmmakers are using. It's lazy, an error on the entertainer's part. When there is a better option available that both serves the needs of the story and manages to promote the science it uses for fame, I say take it 100/100 times.
I don't expect realism every time. There is a lot of wiggle room for creative freedom. But when one has the option of being creative and using what audiences hadn't seen before for stunning new presentations or, much of the same but worse (see Stegosaurus), I feel you can agree the first option sounds better. Not completely redoing the old, but embracing the new to keep things fresh*. I see Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom doing pretty much just the latter, whereas at the least The Lost World and Jurassic Park 3 attempted the former.
*just thought of this as I typed, but in JP's case there is a blatant easy way in to explain the dinosaurs updating their looks with each new cloned set. The scientists were trying to make dinosaurs as they were expected to look in both the film and book. So one doesn't need to worry if their update is going to be inaccurate in a few years, it was just another version of the dinosaur created in the lab. And before one may wonder "this just explains why they are inaccurate", keep in mind Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom blatantly stated multiple times their park had "Real dinosaurs", implying they weren't tampered with away from reality.
Please do not take offense to this. I respect you up and down as one of my favorite RUclipsrs. However I just feel as someone going into this field, I had to chime in the talk about this and the implications as honestly I felt compelled to. Paleontology is a science that debates with itself yes, but it's less we debate on definite facts and more degrees of them. Pretty much everyone for instance agrees on Tyrannosaurids having some degree of feathers, the debate is just how much. It's how sensationalist articles hype up the debate is how it comes across as "Wow these guys know nothing and keep debating". It's come a long, long way since the 1980s and early 1990s, when things like finding out coloration, behaviors, evolutionary paths, and diets were all speculations and very little hard evidence.
Recently they've come up with a reliable way of calculating the axis of movement, torque load, and force of pulling for 25 different genera of Theropods and applying that to hunting and feeding strategies as well as calculating caloric needs based off migration, range, climate, and scavenging versus hunting food intake yields. That's how precise some of this has gotten. We've even figured out a reliable way to tell color from scale and feather impressions! So having the perception that everyone debates from polar opposite views is faulty because it's less debate and more slightly different views finding data, seeing it supports one way or another, and correcting what's needed. This way it keeps getting more and more accurate with each revision. Polar opposite revision would just reset the way things as viewed and get us nowhere.
When news articles say, "New find reshapes the way _____ is seen!" or something to similar effect... 99/100 times it's just doing the latest addition to an already existing understanding without changing it drastically.
You miss my point good sir. I actually think the films would benefit greatly by giving us more diverse dinosaurs if they embraced some more accuracy and stopped the "Genetic" look it's been aping since 1993. Name me one new dinosaur in the new JW film that doesn't have washed out colors and pretty standard theropod body type. The closest we got is the Indoraptor and Raptor Squad, the latter of which is only noticeable in brightly lit scenes and otherwise flies completely over the heads. Otherwise it is the exact same stuff we have seen over and over again since 1993 and now we don't even have the uniquer elements added by the first two sequels to use.
You also treat excitement and action sequences against accuracy like it is mutually exclusive. Tell me, if we used some accuracy or stopped doing that Fallen Kingdom did (and took designs already good and made them worse and more generic), what would we lose in the film? Nada. Stop thinking adding science in instantly sucks the fun and entertainment out of a movie monster.
They deleted their comment it seems. I was talking to MUTOFiles & Monster Secrets.
Gorasaurus is a kaiju not a dinosaur
There are people who think feathered dinosaurs are scarier than scaly dinosaurs. They can be but feathers don't change how scary an animal is.
I might be among the group who prefers fantasy over reality, but I don't give a crap, I don't give a crap what people think, and I don't give a crap about scientific accuracy. Hell, I prefer the more fun, fantasy dinosaurs than the boring ones from reality, which is overrated anyhow. It's a movie folks, and more importantly fantasy, if you can't accept that, then stick to National Geographic. I personally prefer the retro dinosaur reconstructions from the Charles R. Knight age because it has an old school charm to them, it makes them feel unique and charming, ironically feeling more prehistoric than the modern reconstructions. Like Omni here said: if being entertaining means sacrificing a small chunk of reality (which sucks ass anyway), then it's just a small price to pay. Call me ignorant all you want, it won't change a thing. I'll live as an ignorant, and I will _die_ as an ignorant, and I'll make it all worthwhile with pride.
Also, if people are gonna take how things are portrayed in FICTION so goddamn literally, then just stay away from all work of fantasy, sci-fi, and all that is fiction if you don't have enough brains to learn the difference between the former and reality and not act on them.
I use fiction to get away from reality any away, reality is boring
Wait, was that a reference to John Lennon?
Plus, the dinosaurs in the Jurassic series have to remain in their outdated designs for the sake of consistency, or else changing them like they did with the raptors in JP3 would only create confusion and plotholes with the film's continuity with the general audience.
No they shouldn't
Pretty much agree. Jurassic park had mostly accurate dinosaurs for its time. However, scientific understanding of these creatures has changed. Sure, many ideas proposed by scientists are theories, and are subject to change in light of new evidence. After the discovery of yutyrannus, a large feathered tyranosaur from China, scientists speculated that larger tyrant dinosaurs would have a similar coat of feathers. This fueled the idea of a feathered T. rex. The theory was deemed very likely at the time, but new evidence (a few small patches of skin found on various areas of a T. rex specimen) leads to the idea that tyranosaurus was scaly. However, there are several species we know looked a certain way, right down to the color (psittacosaurus, sinosauropteryx) . While having inaccurate dinosaurs in fiction doesn't hurt dinosaurs, why not try to be accurate? It's more about being right I suppose. Jurassic had a choice to make: change the design to be more accurate and displease longtime fans with continuity errors, or stick with more classic designs and displease fans of accurate depicted animals. In the end, you can't please everyone. I like movie monsters and stuff, but it'd be cool to see some (currently) scientifically accurate dinosaurs.
P.S. saurian is stuck too. They're going to have to make constant changes to their game in order to stay scientifically accurate. They've already had to redesign the rex...
We won't know the truth about these creatures until time travel is real. Until then, let your imagination fill in the gaps and make your own dinosaurs. And the best part is that you technically can't be disproved. Unless you say dinosaurs had rabbit ears and could stretch their arms werehog style. But you get the point right?
Rockstar Dragon not entirely true, we do actually know what certain dinosaurs looked like in terms of coloring and Body coverings.
For example, we know the coloring of an early Ceratopsid called Psittacosaurus, it had darker colors on it's back and Lighter colors on the underside, similar to that of a Deer. Here's the link to the article if you don't believe me:
amp.livescience.com/56123-researchers-decipher-dinosaur-coloring.html
There's also Proof that say A Small theropod dinosaur called Sinosauropteryx had Similar colors to the Coatimundi
www.nature.com/news/2010/100127/full/news.2010.39.html
And they also they've discovered that Microraptor had the Same black, Iridescent, glossy colors of a Crow or Blackbird
www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/microraptor-was-a-glossy-dinosaur-119691559/
And Finally in a 2017 study examination of melanosomes preserved in a specimen of Borealopelta indicated that the nodosaurid had a reddish-brown coloration in life, with a counter-shaded pattern which it was speculated was used for camouflage
www.sci-news.com/paleontology/borealopelta-markmitchelli-05097.html
1st