HOME | DD
Eurwentala β Crossing the Sea
#paleoart #paleontology #pteranodon #pterosaur #pteranodonlongiceps
Published: 2015-06-23 18:15:15 +0000 UTC; Views: 4862; Favourites: 205; Downloads: 46
Redirect to original
Description
To contrast the ugly monsters of Jurassic World, I painted a male Pteranodon longiceps as it might have really looked like. Streamlined, with great wings that can effortlessly carry the animal over open ocean, Pteranodon was surely a beautiful animal. I haven't even drawn much in the last months, let alone painted, and this felt really difficult. It's about time to start doing stuff again.I actually kind of liked Jurassic World, while also being bitterly disappointed with it. It was a nostalgic, happy couple of hours without too much need for brains, but it could have been so much more than that. Oh well.
Related content
Comments: 41
Did you want the dinosurs to have feathers? Because they were never going to do that.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I know that wasn't a realistic hope. But still, it would have been so cool to see realistic dinosaurs in a big budget movie. 
π: 1 β©: 1
Yea would be nice for a realistic dinosaur movie, however Jurrasic World would not be that movie. There was a paleontology youtuber, named Trey the Explainer who said he enjoyed it but sounded angry when reviewing it. Almost as if the directed promised there would be feathers in there.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Sounds pretty much like the contrasting feelings I had about it - I sort of enjoyed it, but was still a bit angry and frustrated about the inaccurate dinosaurs and bad storytelling.
π: 0 β©: 1
Its not like they were going to change the whole cannon of the films, they gave an explanation for why they had no feathers. They main thing that irks me is when people say they wanted feathers on raptors and the other main dinosaurs, they gave some of the dinosaurs in the game feathers, just not the main ones.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I understand they did not want to completely change the appearance of the dinosaurs, especially with so many people still thinking feathered dinos aren't scary. Still, it would have been so cool.
Also, the original book, and to some extendt the movie also, were love letters to science and nerdiness. The characters were smart and survived through scientific thinking, and the dinosaurs were depicted as animals, not monsters, even though they weren't fully accurate. The whole mindset of Jurassic World is different.
π: 0 β©: 1
It isn't that feathered Dino's aren't scary (to some they are) it's that it wouldn't have made sense to change the appearence. And yes the scientific thinking was cool and not very apparent in Jurrasic world, but they acknowledged that they tried to make them monsters, it does affect the story of how the public wasn't interested in animals and wanted "monsters".Β
π: 0 β©: 1
If the dinosaurs depicted as monsters made sense because it was explained in a few dialogue lines, so would have feathered dinos ("we updated the old InGen genetic blueprints and replaced the frog dna with newly sequenced dinosaurs/with birds, because they are closest living relatives"). That's all it would have taken to get it to "make sense" - as if much of the movie did, anyway.
But it would have been a very different movie, and probably the producers decided it would not sell as well as a monster movie. And that's fine, but I personally would have enjoyed the different one more.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes that's most likely it
π: 0 β©: 1
The frog DNA part, at least as explained in the book, actually did make partial sense. Much on animal DNA is identical in all practical purposes, and you can transfer genes involved in basic metabolism and body plans directly between, say, a mouse and a fruit fly. They'll do their job.
It's understandable that InGen geneticists, working under pressure, would use any easily accessible genome to help scaffolding their dinosaur genes. An early model organism of ontogeny was the African clawed frog, which produces a fair number of large, easily manipulated egg cells. So why not use those? While it's not the same animal (which kind of breaks the illusion) the frog that can famously change it's gender also happens to be an African species: the common reed frog, Hyperolius viridiflavus.
π: 0 β©: 1
Makes sense, makes sense. This is besides the point but will you ever draw any pre dinosaur extinction "mammals"? Like gorgonopsid?
π: 0 β©: 1
I actually drew a gorgonopsid just a couple of days ago. We'll see if I get around to colouring and posting it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ooh, any entoedont or hyenadon?
π: 0 β©: 1
Maybe at some point.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks! I picked it from a photograph of a frigatebird. They have fairly similar proportions, actually.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, that's pretty neat!
π: 0 β©: 0
Beautiful painting! I like the colours you've used
π: 0 β©: 1
Thanks! I don't usually do paintings, but I always watch mr. Dinomaniac paint and wanted to try my hand at it too.
π: 0 β©: 0
I love how the clouds blend nicely well with the Pteranodon!
π: 0 β©: 0
Oooh, I love the colors you used!Β
π: 0 β©: 0
I've only seen the trailers but every time I see the raptors, I think they look more like quarter horses than birds.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, there's a lot of horse in them. Though in this movie, they don't gallop or stride, but take quick short steps like a small bird. I'm still not sure whether it was cool or weird.
π: 0 β©: 0
pterasaur!!! fav. Such a great individual as well. I wish I could have glimpsed a sky full of them...
π: 0 β©: 1
Agreed. It must have been beautiful.
π: 0 β©: 0
A truly fantastic creature
I partly stole that from land Before Time. Whenever I see a pic of a Pteranodon, I think of the character Pterano
Very nice work! Your reps come out looking very believable
π: 0 β©: 0
He definitely is majestic. Well done, and Jurassic World could have done better. Well at least they had an excuse for it.
π: 0 β©: 0
The color pattern you chose for him is very nice indeed. A nice change from all the solid grey/brown depictions so common.
I liked Jurassic World, but wasn't overly enthused or put out by it. Perhaps that's because, as you said, it didn't have much need for brains. You just kinda go with it.
I never have been a fan of the inaccuracies presented in the Jurassic Park story line, and that hasn't changed. But I liked when the geneticist said many of the animals could have been much different if they didn't have to patch up their DNA. But I still don't think that leaves room for several of the inaccuracies.
π: 0 β©: 0
Really the only accuracy this time would be that the mosasaur couldn't be killed and that dromaeosaurs can be trained (well, their speed was stated to be also only half of the original film's 80m/hr)
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, the raptors were - aside from huge anatomical inaccuracies - depicted as actual animals, and quite interesting ones at that. That saved a lot of embarrasment.
I'm of the opinion that Indominus rex was not actually a dinosaur at all. Theropod-like, but facultatively quadruped with extra fingers - it's a rauisuchid!
π: 0 β©: 3
The thing re: raptor behaviour is that the earlier ones were insane.
π: 0 β©: 0
Ohh, that's an interesting opinion re: I. rex! Now that I look at it, it does bear a striking resemblance, and it does make up for the quadrupedal parts of the movie. I'll have to keep that idea in my back pocket.
π: 0 β©: 0
Apparently the 5 fingers (and sapience) is from human DNA.
π: 0 β©: 1
Human DNA? Now that's not creepy at all.
π: 0 β©: 1
Not mentioned in the movie, but mentioned elsewhere by the producers.
π: 0 β©: 0