HOME | DD
Hydrallon β Desire vs. Reality
Published: 2013-03-29 14:58:00 +0000 UTC; Views: 1433; Favourites: 16; Downloads: 6
Redirect to original
Description
Accept it: all the Jurassic Park-era stuff about dinosaurs is wrong. Dinosaurs were feathery, usually-harmless animals, NOT scaly, vicious monsters. Besides, you can be scary without feathers! [link]*coughstupidfeatherlessJP4dinosaurscough* [link]
Related content
Comments: 34
π: 0 β©: 0
About the dinosaurs having feathers in the JP movies. It's stated in the Jurassic Park that the genetic code of the dinosaur DNA wasn't complete. So to fix it, Ingen scientists added small strands of modern animal like frogs and lizards. A good example of this is in Jurassic World, the velociraptor Blue has her unique blue strips thanks the her having blue-throated monitor lizard DNA. Dr. Wu in the same movie even says to the park owner (and this is an actual quote from the movie) "Nothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth.Β " So in essence, the dinosaurs in the JP series look the way they do thanks to massΒ consumerΒ interest.
π: 0 β©: 0
-.-
the movie has feathered dinos. the indominus is feathered on his arms. the trailer did say that they had breakthroughs in dna cloneing, so perhaps seeing as the indominus is a hybird it has feathered dino dna, so possibly they don't have all the dna yet for that particular dino or it's a planned future attraction.
the toyline Chaos Effect is what alot of this film is being based on, and in CE we had an archeopteryx velociraptor hybird called the Velociraptoryx which had feathers and feathery wings.
the only reason i can think of why the director said no feathers is because of the backlash it would have made if they decided to featherfy all the dinos in this film INCLUDEING ones that were in previous films without a proper explanation. as far as i can tell they only have one trex in the park, and its the same one from the first film, which was their first cloned animal...makeing her very old and very obsolete since her dna not only had frog dna (film) but crocodile dna (novel)
they are suposed to have two more movies on the way, and there are still three more islands that have yet to have been seen. as isla Sorna was the main location in films 2 and three. i'm hopeing they do start to bring out more accurate dinosaurs BUT not at the expense of the existing ones, as the raptors from the first film still exist in the abandoned section of the park. we may start seeing feathered raptors start getting introduced in the next film.
the new toyline did have a stegoceratops that i'm pretty sure won't be in this film, but might be in the next.Β hybrid dinos and perfected dna dinos.
all i know is that Jurassic Park has dinosause
π: 0 β©: 0
TBH, I agree with the feathery part and the non-vicious part. However, I do believe that some instances of theropods would have a hankering for human flesh...
After all, there are predators in real-life who also eat man. Just look at monsters like the lions of Tsavo, the rabid wolves of Russia, and, of course, Gustave!Β
As well as this, you misspelled "you can be scary, even with feathers".
π: 0 β©: 0
I've worked hands on with birds of prey. Not harmless. I appreciate the gist of this, though.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think you confused "harmless" with "passive".
π: 0 β©: 0
Harmless?HARMLESS?HARMLESS!!!
And any jp didnt have them monsters, exept maby the third a bit, Β they are not harmless things they can still kill people!
π: 0 β©: 1
Most dinosaurs, like most modern animals, were completely harmless unless you provoked them.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's passive, not harmless.
π: 0 β©: 0
t-rexes only had feathers when they were babies. and im pretty sure if a hungry t-rex sees a person they would obviously eat the person, dumbass
π: 0 β©: 1
Seeing as how there's a very close relative of T. rex that was COMPLETELY covered in feathers, it's very likely that T. rex also had some feathers as an adult. As for eating someone, T. rex wouldn't eat a person for the same reason that a wolf wouldn't eat a bug- it's too much work for very little reward. Before you start insulting people, do your research first.
π: 0 β©: 1
I still wouldn't call a T. rex harmless, mostly because of the fact it could kill someone by accident. I'd call it passive, rather.
π: 0 β©: 0
Well, I wouldn't say "harmless" so much as "not constantly trying to kill you just because".
π: 0 β©: 1
well "science" is science and movie supposedly to be action-like, probably no one wants to watch dinosaurs with no action for a action movie. 1 thing you forgot, not all dinosaur in Jurassic park is from the same era like Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous.
π: 0 β©: 1
So? You can still have accurate dinosaurs in an action movie. Also, it doesn't matter what era they're from; virtually all theropod dinosaurs had feathers.
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't mind a little science, but feathers on large theropods, may make people think their watching a movies that has a 20ft and above height a chicken.
π: 0 β©: 1
If T. rex had feathers, it wouldn't look like a chicken. It'd look more like Yutyrannus here: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
yeah, I seen some but the thought of it seeing one on a film just kind of awkward, just that we are accustomed to their scaly skin and feathery doesn't seen so threating.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's what you think. You ever seen a seriously ticked-off bird? Feathers let birds show a lot of emotion, and when a bird's angry, its feathers make it look terrifying. [link] [link] [link] [link] Besides, we don't remove fur from mammals to make them scarier, so why should we remove feathers from dinosaurs?
π: 0 β©: 2
Like the cassowary, for example.
π: 0 β©: 0
not just me only, some others too, yes I seen some bird that get piss off and mammals are usually had fur, so why do director direct naked actor/actresses, we're part of a mammal. well I careless what the film crew do with their film, no one but the company could only get what to say anyways.
π: 0 β©: 0
I wouldn't say harmless. There were lots of giant monsters that could kill you, feathers or no feathers.
π: 0 β©: 2
Yeah, but most of them were harmless. Even the big ones would only be dangerous if they were hungry or felt threatened by you.
π: 0 β©: 1
I would call that passive, not harmless.
π: 0 β©: 0
I have to second that.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd third to that. Any carnivorous animals can be dangerous.
π: 0 β©: 1
Fifthed. And herbivores could be worse.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, the ones large or aggressive enough to have either no or very few predators, like the hippo.
π: 0 β©: 1
I'd really hate to face a charging sauropod.
π: 0 β©: 1
Same; if we got in one's way, it probably wouldn't even notice.
π: 0 β©: 0