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
Favorite Dinosaur Reconstructions
Topic Started: Sep 28 2013, 09:05 PM (305,548 Views)
Yi Qi
Member Avatar


Ulquiorra
May 24 2016, 12:08 PM
Finally someone has given Helicoprion (if it is that) a Chimaeriforme-like appearance, instead of making it look like a generic shark.
Been there, done that...

2 years ago:
Posted Image

But yeah i got quickly corrected on the chimaeriform appearance as it turns out, we do have enough eugenodontid material to tell what their bodies looked like, and while they were by no means generic sharks, they didn't look like modern ratfish either:

Posted Image

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


Eugenodontids always bothered me because it looks like they should have claspers or anal fins or something but they just are sort of body and very long tail area.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jon Sam
Member Avatar


Posted Image

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heliosphoros
Member Avatar


Flish
May 24 2016, 10:29 PM
Eugenodontids always bothered me because it looks like they should have claspers or anal fins or something but they just are sort of body and very long tail area.


Yes, the absence of claspers is weird. Maybe internal?

Mr.Samosaurus
May 25 2016, 05:58 AM
Posted Image



Reminds me of DR, except actually pleasing to look at.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Some of DR's models don't look so bad in and of themselves IMO, it's mainly their overuse in lazily-done stock images that's made them cringeworthy (and his coelurosaurs admittedly are so poorly feathered it's almost disgraceful, I mean I know most of them are a good few years old by now but still).
Edited by CyborgIguana, May 25 2016, 11:53 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Acinonyx Jubatus
Member Avatar
I AM THE UNSHRINKWRAPPER!

CyborgIguana
May 25 2016, 11:47 AM
Some of DR's models don't look so bad in and of themselves IMO, it's mainly their overuse in lazily-done stock images that's made them cringeworthy (and his coelurosaurs admittedly are so poorly feathered it's almost disgraceful, I mean I know most of them are a good few years old by now but still).
I think in this instance "DR" means "Dinosaur Revolution," not "DinoRaul." :P As far as I know Raul has never made a Beelzebufo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
heliosphoros
Member Avatar


Yes, I meant the Discovery Channel cringefest that was originally meant to be a silent LBT type project.

Given the amount of times that failed, I wonder if the concept is cursed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Incinerox
Member Avatar
Āeksiot Zaldrīzoti

It's a real shame because Disney's Dinosaur was originally a silent film as well, but was a last minute change to a typical Pixar movie. I mean, sure, I liked it, but still.

Then comes Dinosaur Revolution. The closest we get to the original plan is the compacted version "Dinotasia", which is, as I said, only a compacted, rushed version which just uses Dinosaur Revolution stock.

And now the erroneously named "Walking With Dinosaurs". Which was the biggest disappointment in paleontological history.

And it's always down to the last minute decision by the producers "hey you know what, I don't think people can relate to silent dinosaurs". It's like they don't hear us going "YES, YOU MORONS. WE CAN".

The concept is by no means cursed. It's the people running the show that don't seem to understand their own audience.

Like for god's sake, I'll compromise. If a human aspect is so desperately required, get a good narrator, and tell a story like a best selling documentary would. Case and point: The Emperor's March, the story of an Emperor penguin colony as told by Morgan Freeman. And it was BRILLIANT. That is the sort of thing we want from our dinosaurs. Not poop jokes.
Edited by Incinerox, May 25 2016, 04:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Acinonyx Jubatus
May 25 2016, 12:34 PM
CyborgIguana
May 25 2016, 11:47 AM
Some of DR's models don't look so bad in and of themselves IMO, it's mainly their overuse in lazily-done stock images that's made them cringeworthy (and his coelurosaurs admittedly are so poorly feathered it's almost disgraceful, I mean I know most of them are a good few years old by now but still).
I think in this instance "DR" means "Dinosaur Revolution," not "DinoRaul." :P As far as I know Raul has never made a Beelzebufo.
Oh, come to think of it that seemed kind of obvious in hindsight. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ulquiorra
Member Avatar


Incinerox
May 25 2016, 04:40 PM
And now the erroneously named "Walking With Dinosaurs". Which was the biggest disappointment in paleontological history.
And to think they gave that film the same title as one of the best dinosaur series to have been made. In fact the series was better, it actually was a documentary series, even though it did have it's inaccuracies.
Edited by Ulquiorra, May 25 2016, 05:43 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


Incinerox
May 25 2016, 04:40 PM
It's a real shame because Disney's Dinosaur was originally a silent film as well, but was a last minute change to a typical Pixar movie. I mean, sure, I liked it, but still.

Then comes Dinosaur Revolution. The closest we get to the original plan is the compacted version "Dinotasia", which is, as I said, only a compacted, rushed version which just uses Dinosaur Revolution stock.

And now the erroneously named "Walking With Dinosaurs". Which was the biggest disappointment in paleontological history.

And it's always down to the last minute decision by the producers "hey you know what, I don't think people can relate to silent dinosaurs". It's like they don't hear us going "YES, YOU MORONS. WE CAN".

The concept is by no means cursed. It's the people running the show that don't seem to understand their own audience.

Like for god's sake, I'll compromise. If a human aspect is so desperately required, get a good narrator, and tell a story like a best selling documentary would. Case and point: The Emperor's March, the story of an Emperor penguin colony as told by Morgan Freeman. And it was BRILLIANT. That is the sort of thing we want from our dinosaurs. Not poop jokes.
The unfortunate thing is that the studio executives for these kinds of movies probably think of dinosaurs as "kids' stuff", so they have their interests as their top priority rather than those of adult paleo-fans (even when they're the writers or consultants). Ultimately they don't care about what we want or even about the quality of their movies, they just have dollar signs in their eyes and want to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jon Sam
Member Avatar


Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BossMan, Jake
Member Avatar
Son of God

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Posted Image Flish
Member Avatar


Honestly not a fan of the weird trope of giving Nanuqsaurus white feathers. Yah it lived in Alaska, but at the time Alaska wasn't THAT cold. Colder than the rest of North America, yah, but not cold enough for them to be white.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CyborgIguana
Member Avatar


It only got about as cold as the Pacific Northwest or coastal Scotland today IIRC. Since Alaska probably did still get some snow I suppose Nanuq could've had a "seasonal" white coat like that of stoats or arctic foxes (or ptarmigans if you'd prefer to keep it in the phylogenetic bracket), but even that's stretching probability IMO.
Edited by CyborgIguana, May 26 2016, 04:12 PM.
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