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 (256,432 Views)
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


I'm annoyed when people say that Ichthyovenator is the only known Asian spinosaurid. Y EVERYONE FORGET SIAMOSAURUS???? Also the fact that many people STILL complain about seeing grass in depictions of the Late Cretaceous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Megaraptorking
Member Avatar
I stand in the shadows waiting for you to return me to the light.

Yeah I mean I had a show and tell long as hell ago and one person I think possibility extremos or somebody said "Grass is not accurate to the whatever time." I was also using ferns that looked very thin and it was ZD ferns that I feel like would most likely be on Jurassic or Cretaceous plains. I used ferns for a reason.

Then for my newer/older S&T somebody got on me for having grass and it was modern day with dinosaurs, I was like, oh... really.... It is modern day on a island in the far off middle of nowhere and your saying that I cannot have grass in modern day.... WTFudge....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


CyborgIguana
Dec 10 2013, 07:45 PM
I'm annoyed when people say that Ichthyovenator is the only known Asian spinosaurid. Y EVERYONE FORGET SIAMOSAURUS???? Also the fact that many people STILL complain about seeing grass in depictions of the Late Cretaceous.
Grass is allright. Grasslands, grass steppes and savannas are not :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
extremos
Member Avatar
Where's Mr Pig?

Megaraptorking
Dec 10 2013, 08:27 PM
Yeah I mean I had a show and tell long as hell ago and one person I think possibility extremos or somebody said "Grass is not accurate to the whatever time." I was also using ferns that looked very thin and it was ZD ferns that I feel like would most likely be on Jurassic or Cretaceous plains. I used ferns for a reason.

Then for my newer/older S&T somebody got on me for having grass and it was modern day with dinosaurs, I was like, oh... really.... It is modern day on a island in the far off middle of nowhere and your saying that I cannot have grass in modern day.... WTFudge....
Yeah I used to go around complaining whenever Gras appeared in the Mezosoic outside of Mastrichtian India, I 'm sorry though,I used to be really annoying back then...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jules
Member Avatar
Mihi est imperare orbi universo

To be honest, you were xD
I'm glad you have changed, you're waaay awesomer now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
extremos
Member Avatar
Where's Mr Pig?

Crookedjaw
Dec 11 2013, 11:12 AM
To be honest, you were xD
I'm glad you have changed, you're waaay awesomer now.
Thank you c:
Anyways I think we're getting a little off topic, no?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


MrGorsh
Dec 11 2013, 03:30 AM
CyborgIguana
Dec 10 2013, 07:45 PM
I'm annoyed when people say that Ichthyovenator is the only known Asian spinosaurid. Y EVERYONE FORGET SIAMOSAURUS???? Also the fact that many people STILL complain about seeing grass in depictions of the Late Cretaceous.
Grass is allright. Grasslands, grass steppes and savannas are not :P
I mean in S&T's and such where people will complain about the TINIEST patch of grass in a photo of Hell Creek. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Sorry about the double post, but sometimes they're necessary in somewhat inactive topics. Anyway, I'm annoyed by how whiny everyone's being about the new WWD film, when to me it really doesn't look that bad. I'm not annoyed by the fact that they don't want to see it, they have every right not to, just that they're constantly whining about how much it's going to suck. If you don't like it, just ignore it and stop ruining it for those of us who do want to see it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


How can we ruin it for you? Mind you that pointing inaccuracies isn't whining, it's just stating that we don't like it being inaccurate. Also, not everyone has to be a fan of certain concept, but that doesn't mean they should shut up because others are enjoying it. We're not going to jump with you into the cinema and complain as the movie goes :P

Yes, I'm not fond of many aspects of the movie. Still might see it. Impossibru, eh?
Edited by Similis, Dec 13 2013, 02:41 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Fair point...though the inaccuracies are all actually pretty minor. It seems to me like a pretty well-researched film.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Similis
Member Avatar


Edmontosaurus being skinny and almost swan-necked isn't a small inaccuracy - it was known before that this genus was quite a bulky animal. Same goes for tyrannosauroid feathers - they were known up to that point. Many maniraptor's pennibrachia are badly restored - and in the bird the wing isn't even a part of the manus from what I've seen. Snake-faced deinonychosaurs contrast with the sorta proper feathering given to then. The only animals well researched I've seen are Pachyrhinosaurus, which are obviously the main focus of the movie. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sheather
Member Avatar
Thank you for the set, Azrael!

It's annoying that in 2013 we still can't have accurate characters.

Although -granted, I only saw them for 1/2 a second in a commercial- it appears to have properly "furry", erect-standing Azhdarchids of some sort.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


MrGorsh
Dec 13 2013, 02:59 AM
Edmontosaurus being skinny and almost swan-necked isn't a small inaccuracy - it was known before that this genus was quite a bulky animal. Same goes for tyrannosauroid feathers - they were known up to that point. Many maniraptor's pennibrachia are badly restored - and in the bird the wing isn't even a part of the manus from what I've seen. Snake-faced deinonychosaurs contrast with the sorta proper feathering given to then. The only animals well researched I've seen are Pachyrhinosaurus, which are obviously the main focus of the movie. :P
I don't really know that much about dinosaur anatomy, so I guess I have a different definition of "minor" than you do. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Meerkatmatt2
Member Avatar


Remember this took them about four years to make, that's why they are a tiny bit off, the dinosaur models were made early on though bendy tailed troodons are inexcusable.
You better just enjoy the film then complain, after all, accurately feathered dinosaurs are very hard to animate compared to scaly ones.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DinoBear
Member Avatar


MrGorsh
Dec 13 2013, 02:59 AM
Same goes for tyrannosauroid feathers - they were known up to that point.
Now, don't quote me on this, but I have heard that the Gorgosaurus model was finished before Yutyrannus was described, so perhaps they didn't want to take a risk and feather the thing. However, that didn't stop the team who made March of the Dinosaurs.
Edited by DinoBear, Dec 13 2013, 06:52 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
4 users reading this topic (4 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Extinct Animals & Evolution · Next Topic »
Add Reply