Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]






Shoot a firework rocket ~ Winners!
Make a forum zoo!

Welcome to The Round Table. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
What annoys you about paleontology?; Rant on about moronic theories, complaints, or just animals that annoy you.
Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 05:04 PM (256,397 Views)
Denomon3144
Member Avatar
Pick a god and pray!

D-rex, the idiotic chimera "dinosaur" that will be in Jurassic World.
Edited by Denomon3144, May 22 2014, 06:56 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


That monster is so awful that it literally defies paleontology, and as such I question the very act of posting about it here in this topic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bigwhale
Member Avatar


And because of that, JP4 is out of my good films expectations (except the Mosasaurus tank, but I'm more curious about that than excited)

What annoys me about paleontology however is, when only famous animals get proper data. I'm fine for new animals that haven't got researched much. But if it's an old discovery that we could even determine the true shape, diet, etc. It is not acceptable. And I found more data about Darwinopterus, Anurognathus, and more pterosaurs from Mark Witton's book than in the Internet :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


Guys, what have I told you about waiting till the movie comes out until you judge it? Have some patience please. If you're gonna jump on the hate bandwagon, fine, but wait till the damn movie comes out before you call it "idiotic" and "awful".
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ignacio
Member Avatar
Ex Corrupt Staff

Honestly, after reading the plot, i've lost much of my interest in the movie, if not all.
Edited by Ignacio, May 23 2014, 12:18 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bigwhale
Member Avatar


Dr. Hax
May 23 2014, 12:16 AM
Guys, what have I told you about waiting till the movie comes out until you judge it? Have some patience please. If you're gonna jump on the hate bandwagon, fine, but wait till the damn movie comes out before you call it "idiotic" and "awful".
Actually I'm still gonna watch it xD . I'm saying the plot (but you have a point that we shouldn't judge it yet so I'll can only speculate) and dinosaur choice is awful.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Dr. Hax
May 23 2014, 12:16 AM
Guys, what have I told you about waiting till the movie comes out until you judge it? Have some patience please. If you're gonna jump on the hate bandwagon, fine, but wait till the damn movie comes out before you call it "idiotic" and "awful".
The plot won't change the fact this dinosaur is an abomination.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Iben
Member Avatar
There'll be no foot-walking! Just air-flying!

Dr. Hax
May 23 2014, 12:16 AM
Guys, what have I told you about waiting till the movie comes out until you judge it? Have some patience please. If you're gonna jump on the hate bandwagon, fine, but wait till the damn movie comes out before you call it "idiotic" and "awful".
Look.

Certain stories have a certain value and a certain idea behind them. Jurassic Park is one of them. The idea both Crichton and Spielberg had was that the dinosaurs had to be more than movie monsters. The whole deal was to make them as life-like as possible, as animal like as they could be. Jurassic Park is famous for that, not only for stepping away from the monster-look but also because they succeeded in creating actual living animals through CGI. They were believable.

When you take that element away, you loose part of the essence of the story. By going for a genetic-altered dinosaur so that it is more like a monster than an animal, they took the element of realism ( of course, none of the animals were really realistic, but still when you look at what dinosaurs were portrayed as before JP, it's a huge leap ) and "they're not monsters, they're animals ", you cut away an essential part of the storyline of Jurassic Park and what it's about.

No matter how well it's portrayed, how amazing it might look and how magnificent it's executed; you still took a part from the essence and basically transformed the story into something it's not. It's the same reason why a lot of people don't like the new Ninja Turtles movie, because the story was changed to them being aliens rather than mutated turtles.

True fans of the storyline will never like it when the story is altered in such way that it looses it's essence. Whether they see the movie or not, it won't change.
Edited by Iben, May 23 2014, 08:00 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


People who are all like, "paleontology is such a waste of time, just quit with it already and focus on science that's actually beneficial to humanity!". Hey, interesting fact about that, did you know that studying the past actually helps us prepare for the future? God, these idiots just get me so boiled up every time! :implode:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Furka
Member Avatar


Or simply tell them that humanity doesn't deserve to be helped by you, like I do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dr. Hax
Member Avatar


Iben
May 23 2014, 07:59 AM
Dr. Hax
May 23 2014, 12:16 AM
Guys, what have I told you about waiting till the movie comes out until you judge it? Have some patience please. If you're gonna jump on the hate bandwagon, fine, but wait till the damn movie comes out before you call it "idiotic" and "awful".
Look.

Certain stories have a certain value and a certain idea behind them. Jurassic Park is one of them. The idea both Crichton and Spielberg had was that the dinosaurs had to be more than movie monsters. The whole deal was to make them as life-like as possible, as animal like as they could be. Jurassic Park is famous for that, not only for stepping away from the monster-look but also because they succeeded in creating actual living animals through CGI. They were believable.

When you take that element away, you loose part of the essence of the story. By going for a genetic-altered dinosaur so that it is more like a monster than an animal, they took the element of realism ( of course, none of the animals were really realistic, but still when you look at what dinosaurs were portrayed as before JP, it's a huge leap ) and "they're not monsters, they're animals ", you cut away an essential part of the storyline of Jurassic Park and what it's about.

No matter how well it's portrayed, how amazing it might look and how magnificent it's executed; you still took a part from the essence and basically transformed the story into something it's not. It's the same reason why a lot of people don't like the new Ninja Turtles movie, because the story was changed to them being aliens rather than mutated turtles.

True fans of the storyline will never like it when the story is altered in such way that it looses it's essence. Whether they see the movie or not, it won't change.
.....You have a point. I can understand why some fans would get upset by that. BUT, I want them to wait until the movie comes out before they judge it. Maybe they'll just treat it like an everyday dinosaur antagonist like the T rex, but probably not. The creators couldn't possibly be so stupid as to not realize how out of place this creature is in the JP universe, and consider how extremely anti-playing God the Jurassic Park movies have been, my guess is that the characters in the movie will ostracize it for being a crime against nature and the whole plot will be about trying to shut down the people who created it before it gets worse. But that's just my guess. Maybe the director and prodcuer and screenwriter really are that stupid, but I doubt it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rezcall
Member Avatar


Dead Clade Walking theory -

Basically some dinosaurs survived the extinction and became extinct later.

There is no solid evidence to confirm this or deny this.
A lot of scientist dispute this even without giving it a chance.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


It's not that scientists aren't willing to give it a chance, just that there currently isn't enough evidence to support it. Most non-avian dinosaur fossils from above the K-T boundary are believed to have simply been deposited in later sediments rather than having been alive at the time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rezcall
Member Avatar


CyborgIguana
May 23 2014, 04:47 PM
It's not that scientists aren't willing to give it a chance, just that there currently isn't enough evidence to support it. Most non-avian dinosaur fossils from above the K-T boundary are believed to have simply been deposited in later sediments rather than having been alive at the time.
What is your thoughts on it?

I personally believe that not all the dinosaurs went extinct at the exact same time. Most likely smaller varieties could have survived?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Possibly. But remember that the K-T extinction wasn't instantaneous, but rather a relatively drawn-out process, perhaps taking as long as 200,000 years.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply