HOME | DD
Boverisuchus β Because I'm sick of it.
Published: 2013-01-17 10:22:53 +0000 UTC; Views: 3154; Favourites: 26; Downloads: 4
Redirect to original
Description
Yeah, have you guessed? I really fucking hate Jurassic Park fanboys who whine about Raptors having feathers. It's as if putting feathers on a dinosaur somehow makes them effeminate, or less intimidating. Maybe these tards should take an attack from an angry eagle or cassowarry, and then try and whine. It ires me even more, that the public mistakenly thinks that this is how they looked....So yeah, please, you just have to put on your big boy pants and deal with it, the image you grew up with is wrong, reality has thoroghly bitch-slapped it.
People might take this to mean that I dont like the movie "Jurassic Park", but that would be wrong. I love the movie, I was in the perfect age demographic to go insanely obsessed about it when it came out.
It was at this stage that I went to the library and found Greg Paul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World". Initially I was incredulous, but after reading time and again how birdlike they were, and seeing Bakker illustrate them with feathers even before Paul did, it sunk in. I wasnt too surprised that about 3 years later, Sinosauropteryx was found, and feathered dinosaurs were confirmed. Thus, my childish infatuation with JP raptors quickly subsided.
Update:
However, I do not for a second deny that scaly theropods are cool. I view the JP raptors as genetic monstrosities that are as much of whatever was used to fill the DNA gaps, as dinosaurs. As Alan Grant said, INGEN simply made theme park monsters. We can simply assume that an inordinate amount of lizard and frog DNa was used to fill in the sequence gaps, and somehow, the feather genes were not recovered. In the Jurassic Park book, Dr Wu wonders about this himself, contemplating just how much of the dinosaurs composition is natural, and what is simply borne of mad science tampering.
I have a slight romantic soft spot for scaly theropods, but only because they remind me of beliggerent, pissed of lizards with chicken legs. I'm sure there may have been primitive theropods which were scaly, unless feathers is basal to the ornithodira complely, which it may be. Still, if JP used scaly Hererrasaurus in their next movie, I would be happily fan-tarding about that.
Related content
Comments: 102
I don't know why they would find pretty feathers "effeminate". In almost every species of bird, the male tends to be more fluffy and colourful than the female, while the females tend to be more drab and mundane. For a dinosaur, having beautiful plumage is probably really masculine to them. It is also worth noting that in some predatory birds, the females tend to be the larger and more aggressive sex of their species, and it is possible that this also applied to predatory dinosaurs. Comparisons between carnivorous theropods, such as Tyrannosaurus and Deinonychus, reveal that those with wider hip bones (a characteristic of a female) were typically more massive than those with thinner hip bones (a characteristic of a male).
With this in mind, I will concede with these JP fanboys, and give them the ultimate alpha male dinosaur they have been begging for. Behold! image.shutterstock.com/image-vβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
All good points.
π: 0 β©: 0
As long as these animals behave like raptors, it's fine in my book.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think that the feathernazis whining about the scaly dinosaurs are no better
π: 0 β©: 1
That's just, like, your opinion dude. There is a big difference. "feather nazis" are only a problem when they put feathers or fluff on dinosaurs that have little or no evidence of feathers, Andrea Cau had some BS excuse for putting feathers on Carnotaurus, for example. They have a right to complain about innacurate dinosaurs portrayed with scales, such as JP raptors, because they are symptomatic of the bullshit "feathers make dinosaurs less scary" mentality that is distancing the public from what maniraptorans are actually like.
π: 0 β©: 0
I don't get why people whine about it either. It was a Science Fiction Movie!
π: 0 β©: 2
We whine about it because we're sick of awesomebros who shit on anything that doesn't look like the movies.
π: 0 β©: 0
Hentai is also not real, and people fap to it
π: 0 β©: 1
Also has nothing to do with my point.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know, but that had to be said
π: 0 β©: 1
OtakulΓΆs!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes! I'm so glad I found somebody else who agrees how awesome the JP raptors are! Though I wasn't born yet when the movie came out, I too grew up with Jurassic Park, and I think the velociraptors are the best thing ever.
Now, to be honest, when they first began putting feathers on dinosaurs, I was a bit...weirded out. Not that they didn't look cool or anything, it just didn't quite seem...right. I thought the feathers made the dinosaurs seem too "bird like" too early in their evolution timeline. Especially for T-Rex...Like if newborn dinosaurs had hatched with soft down, which then all fell out when they grew up, then that'd be better for me.
BUT I do not think that the feathers make the dinosaurs any less awesome then they are. Feathers are pretty neat things. And I'm kinda the opposite; I hate hearing about people getting p***ed or complains about how the JP raptors aren't realistic because they DON'T have feathers. I'm so glad to find another person who loves the JP raptors for what they are, and who also agrees that feathered Dinosaurs are still totally awesome, and the paleontology "norm".
Feathered or not, the Juarassic Park velociraptors are beasts to be feared and loved, as well as the scientifically correct feathered therapods.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think that Jp raptors are fine, for continuity in the series. I mean, they are not exact copies of the genuine article, they would have dna from other species to fill in the gaps, not just frogs, either.
I like Jp raptors in that they are not accurate, they are not supposed to be, really. Pissy chicken-legged lizards make good movie monsters.
I prefer feathered dinosaurs for representation of real dinosaurs, and I don't like when Jurassic Park fans deny completely the fact that raptors had feathers. But still, Jp raptors are great movie critters.
π: 0 β©: 1
Exactly, they were just made for the movie, so it doesn't really matter if the raptors copy real life exactly. It's fun when you have a media representation of something that does or once existed. I mean, if we copied the exact creature into the movie, feathers and all, it might..."boring." Not to give feathers a bat name, but I've seen some media where it's all based down to detail on life, and it's just too predictable, and less exciting. Featherless, movie monster Raptors add excitement to the Jurassic Park movie, because they are unpredictable, and perhaps completely alien to what we expect.
It would be kinda cool though, if they added a few feathers on the raptors in the fourth movie. Maybe not thick all over the whole body, but like on the head, arms and legs. And they'd be simple feathers at that too, not full plumage like on a Peacock.
I agree with you when you say that feathered dinosaurs shouldn't be ignored. Feathers are important, evolutionary marvels. I just don't like it when other people completely toss them out the window. And it bugs me when people also assume that when dinosaurs have feathers, they're fancy full feathers like what birds have. But that's not the case; some of the very first feathers were simple and soft "spikes" like the needles on a pine tree. So the animal may still look scaly, even with feathers like that.
π: 0 β©: 1
Raptors most probably had at least 3 kinds of feathers, including simple "fluff", fluffy "tuft" type feathers, and proper wing feathers. But the color and arrangement of these is mostly down to educated guesses. I could easily imagine a feathered raptor being sleek and majestic, like an eagle, or bedraggled and ugly, like a vulture. Either way, they were probably not fancy and colorful, any more than a tiger or wolf, or eagle is.
π: 0 β©: 1
I completely agree
π: 0 β©: 0
i've just got a sore spot about the feathery dinosaurs not because the feathers themselves...but because alot of people have put my JP inspired art down simply because they don't have feathers.....
the other hate for it is that there are no good JP toys of the feathered dinosaurs. when JP3 came out hasbro took over the toyline and the toys are horrible! (animatronic spino is the only exception) they can't even stand on there own half the time because they arn't in a neutral position....the legs are like spread so far out they either fall on their faces or fall on their tails...and most of them the only articulation they have is there arms....but only enough they have articulartion on their heads....but that cant actually be used and it dose'nt turn...cuz the stripes on the neck are not lined up with the rest of the head....
i've thought about modifing an older classic raptor to be feathered but then i'm afraid of messing up a toy's original look.
π: 0 β©: 1
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. JP fan-art is fine for non-feathered raptors.
π: 0 β©: 1
i know...but i wish they would'nt be so mean about it.
hey i've always wondered this
how come no one ever does feathered raptors...with non-pristeed feathers? they always look clean in any art i've seen....but would'nt they really be all dirty and stuff?...it's just that claws and jaws don't really look like good preening tools to me. hrm... i bet they carried alot of diseases...feathers means more attraction to mites and ticks...and insects were huge back then....
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, the front teeth of many theropods look particularly like they would be good for grooming and preening, the teeth at the very front of the jaws. This was probably one purpose of these teeth, but also for nibbling in small spaces when they were eating their kills. I think they probably had clean feathers, because their front teeth are so obviously adapted to preen.
π: 0 β©: 1
hrm....true....but ya gotta admit. i bet they smelled bad.
π: 0 β©: 1
I have smelled an ibis once, it was not nice.
π: 0 β©: 1
never sniffed one of those before. it's just that if predatory dinosaurs had feathers they would'nt be all pretty and fancy stuff. they would be all covered in flies and stuff. they would probably be dirt colored or stained dirt color from dust baths and attacks. or they would be missing feathers in places...
what purpose did the feathers serve anyway?
π: 0 β©: 1
insulation, and also to communicate or impress rivals/females.
π: 0 β©: 1
warding off rivals sure but.....insulation? i thought it would be too warm for that. since dinosaurs are warm blooded...
π: 0 β©: 1
but warm blooded animals need insulation, to stop the heat from escaping, like birds.
π: 0 β©: 1
i guess the smaller animals sure..but larger ones like theropods were probabbly alot fatter.
i can imagine theropods havind some feathers maybe for mating purposes...but it would probably be REALLY hard to keep them clean...unless it was some kind of herd grooming ritual.
π: 0 β©: 1
what kind of feathers would a pleaseosaur have? i figure they would need feathers more then some dinosaurs...you know for insulation..would they be waterproof like ducks or compact like penguins?
π: 0 β©: 0
I'm a fanboy and I support feathery death.
I also suggest you check out Atomic robo. They do a whoooooole thing on this
π: 0 β©: 1
I quote Alan Grant when I say this: "Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago what is left of then is fossilized in the rocks and it is in those rocks that real scientists make real discoveries, now what John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park was create genetically-engineered theme-park monsters nothing more and nothing less."
I'm a Creationist but I love Jurassic Park 1,2 and 3. I also believe V. mongoliensis was partially covered in feathers, but I don't believe they evolved into Birds.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'm a Jurassic Park fan and I'm not complaining about the feathers, just as long as there are real evidence of them having feathers. And yeah, as Alan Grant said, these are genetically modified theme park monsters (part the real deal and other part, altered).
π: 0 β©: 1
I agree. Of course, there is lots of evidence for raptors having feathers, sinornithosaurus fossils like "Dave", and the presence of quill knobs on the arm of velociraptor, etc.
π: 0 β©: 1
And not to mention the microraptor is a dromeasaur and it has feathers, which would make the larger ones the "flightless" or "grounded" species (which one suits it better?).
And don't want any hoaxes, like the archaeoraptor one.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, large raptors and small raptors existed at the same time, both during the early cretaceous, and late cretaceous, so they must have come from a common ancestor, in my view anyhow.
π: 0 β©: 1
But in different places, different environments and whatnot.
π: 0 β©: 1
well, not always, hesperonychus and dromeosaurus lived in the same locality.
π: 0 β©: 1
Like coyotes and wolves and foxes
π: 0 β©: 1
Sometimes I wonder how those species of canids could develop in the same environment if they shared a common ancestor.
π: 0 β©: 1
Good question.
π: 0 β©: 1
Feathers make everything look badass.
Heck, If I put wings on a bunny it would look badass.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>