T O P
  • By -

SchpeederMan

I am not going to watch and hate neither. I will watch and enjoy both.


_FossilFace_

This sub goes from bashing to defending Jurassic World in the snap of a finger I swear.


Ducky237

I mean people do have different opinions. This sub isn’t homogeneous. I guess it just depends whose voice is louder at any given point.


RareSuperSylle

Its a bit less of a hivemind than other subs actually


sleeper_shark

This is why i still follow this sub. This and for the Dino's.


smashboi888

"Both?" "Both." "Both." "Both is good."


IWantToDoThings

With so few good dinosaur games, do we REALLY have the ability to be choosey? lol Let's just like them all. lol


Zer0Cool89

didnt they just remaster all the Turok games!? Your comment just reminded me.


IWantToDoThings

Back in like 2015. lol


Zer0Cool89

Has it been that long since it came out?! I'm out of the loop apparently. you ever play dino crisis? I've been wanting to play through that but I don't know if I can go all the way back to the ps1 era.


CoolioAruff

[eh](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/jurassicpark/images/0/04/Jurassic_world_fallen_kingdom_baryonyx_by_sonichedgehog2-dc9dfqf.png/revision/latest?cb=20180427200439)


Yoshi2255

Not accurate? Sure, but will it bring more people to watch movie about Dinosaurs and make more people [especially young teenagers and children] fascinated by dinosaurs? Of course it will, and that's why it's still amazing, more people will enjoy both accurate and inaccurate dinosaurs and therefore more people will study them, which I think we can all agree is positive.


CoolioAruff

Why not be educational end entertaining? Thats what the first movie did, no reason modern dino movies cant be accurate and entertaining at the same time. Needing awesomebro designs is just laziness, a good director could make even the most birdlike, natural looking animal threatening. Only untalented directors need to rely on over the top awesomebro spiky cgi lizards to be scary.


smashboi888

The first movie wasn't trying to be educational though. It was trying to be entertaining. Yeah, the designs were more-accurate for the time, but let's not forget that they purposely made the Raptors large and scaly to make them more threatening, gave the Dilophosaurus a frill and the ability to spit venom to make it look more-different from the Raptors, and made the T-Rex only be able to see prey if it was moving. The JP films were *never* meant to be educational, that's not something they're trying to do.


Aaaaaardvaark

For real, it's like nobody has even seen a Jurassic Park movie. There is an in-universe explanation that is endlessly discussed in the films... that the animals *aren't* dinosaurs; they're the best transgenic "theme park monsters" that a money-hungry tycoon could engineer from fragmented DNA. And each species has countless viable genome versions that were tried and tested by InGen, hence them looking different in every film. In the video games, you can engineer a "dinosaur" once you obtain 50% of its genome. The rest of the genome is inserted from a combination of extant animal species. So a velociraptor, for example, is more likely a hybrid of velociraptor/gecko/rhinoceros/frog/vulture.


Grimbauld

JP is realistic they used frogs for dna so that explains the realistic differences


Yoshi2255

Godzilla and pacific rim are prime examples on why scales work better for movies with big scary creatures, it's more threating and, activates our monkey brain (see scale->it's a snake or crocodile->be scared) and appeals to wider audience (which is the ultimate goal of any movie from mainstream franchise), also animating and modeling and shading fur is extremely time consuming and expensive so it would be just a waste of money for producers especially because majority of audience won't even care about it, it's just not worth at all, it's action movie that wants to show dinosaurs fighting with humans not documentary


CoolioAruff

Lazy excuses, literally independant paleoartists make better feathered cgi dinos than universal does. Again, it takes a good director but anything can be turned scary, even birds.


Yoshi2255

Yeah and they make like 20 seconds clip with regular texture and fur quality (not saying it's not impressive but comparing modeling one or few dinos for a few minutes scene at best to 2.5h movie with hundreds of dinosaurs that all have to be as photorealistic (texture and shading wise) as possible to not break immersion is kinda stupid, even prehistoric planet, as much as beautiful and well made it is, has some visible problems with placing dinosaurs in the world seemlessly and in few scenes from trailer I just couldn't think of anything other than how these dinosaurs don't fit in the scene because of lighting and texture issues. JW is ment to be an exciting and scary experience for everyone not only dinosaur purists who can't stand non accurate dinosaurs


smashboi888

It may be inaccurate, but I still like it. I can at least identify it as a Baryonyx. It was my friend's favorite dinosaur from FK as well, so it does have some fans.


_FossilFace_

Accuracy aside, my issue with the Fallen Kingdom Baryonyx is that prior to Fallen Kingdom, an artist had made a JW Baryonyx design which was used on an official website: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/jurassicpark/images/7/77/Baryonyx-detail-header.png/revision/latest?cb=20150730103823&path-prefix=de Once again, accuracy and subjective enjoyment aside but it feels like a slap in the face to the artist to not include it in the film.


Drex678

Like That one better the the Fk onwe


ElSquibbonator

Same. That artwork was clearly meant to say, "This is what these dinosaurs look like in the *Jurassic Park* universe". Subsequent films have contradicted this, and that's not just bad creature design-- it's bad *continuity.* For a movie series as big and expansive as *Jurassic Park,* that's a problem. Continuity has never been *Jurassic Park*'s strong suit, especially when it comes to dinosaur designs. But it's especially bad here. If the *Jurassic World* website had used the *Baryonyx* design that would go on to be used in *Fallen Kingdom,* it still wouldn't be accurate, but it would at least have been consistent.


Rigatonicat

I like that Bary tbh


1_and_only_Mr_He

So do I it may not be accurate but it looks awesome to me


CoolioAruff

you mean the generic bipedal crocodile?


Advanced-Ad6980

Yes.


smashboi888

Why are you getting downvoted for this? It's your opinion and you're not even stating it in a toxic way or anything.


Rigatonicat

Idk I respect other peoples opinions, I can see why they don’t like that bary


Kanenite3000

I love my big crocodile lizard bird


EagerT

That looks cool af I wanna go to Jurrasic World universe


claus_mother_3

YES! YES!


Rxero13

They explained this in the 4th film, didn’t they? They sorta explain it away even in the first film. They’re mixed DNA. It’s a sci-fi movie for Christ sake. It’s like arguing about Star Wars or superhero movies having an unrealistic approach about something.


Zampano85

Heck, if I recall correctly they explained why the dinosaurs looked off in the first book.


RickGrimes30

They do.. They specify these are not accurate representation on real dinosaurs.. More what the people of the time assumed dinos looked like


Krispyz

Here's one quote from the original book "We haven’t re-created the past here. The past is gone. It can never be re-created. What we’ve done is reconstruct the past—or at least a version of the past. And I’m saying we can make a better version." Obviously you can't include everything in a movie adaptation, but the book was very clear that the dinosaurs were not accurate recreations. The book also has an explanation of why deinonychus sized raptors were called velociraptor... It wasn't a mistake in the book.


Rxero13

I don’t recall, but it’s worth a re-read to find out!


Zampano85

I'll add it to my backlog. Once I finish Dune (again) I'll start on JP and JP:tLW...


geraltsthiccass

Dr Grant in the 3rd movie says it best. Not a direct quote because I can't remember it word for word but "the real dinosaurs are buried in the dirt. What John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically engineered theme park monsters." Perfectly explains it with the 1st movie going into more detail about the DNA sequencing and using frog DNA to complete the code.


Rxero13

I love both those explaining why the dinosaurs look different, but I loved Wu’s explanation in World best. Making them bigger and scary to sell the look rather than meet realism.


IronBeast25

You didn’t ask for reality, you asked for more teeth!!


horseradish1

I love bringing up the Version 4 conversation from the novel. Wu wanted to take the animals' codes to "version 4" to make them slower, dumber, and more aligned with what people thought dinosaurs were actually like. He said they were too fast, and people wouldn't believe they were real. However, in universe, the events of Jurassic Park were incredibly well known, so the public idea of dinosaurs shifted. Therefore, Wu wants to make them into more of what the public expect. The public hear stories about killer dinosaurs, so he makes killer dinosaurs. The genetic defects that make the dinosaurs scientifically inaccurate are now features that need to be preserved to save branding. In universe, it makes A LOT of sense, and I've thought this way ever since the first Jurassic World trailer dropped and everybody complained that they didn't update them and make them feathered.


Rxero13

Thank you for this. Makes me wanna re-read the novels again even more so.


horseradish1

You should. The Lost World is so damn good by comparison to the movie. All of the governmental thriller and corporate espionage stuff is fantastic. If I had a genie, one of my wishes would be to be given a weekend where I forget everything I know about dinosaurs and Jurassic Park, and I can spend that weekend in a cabin reading Jurassic Park and The Lost World as if it's for the first time, and then I get all my memories back at the end. It's like the people who saw the end of Planet of the Apes in cinema. I'm jealous of those people. I can't imagine what people thought was going to happen in Jurassic Park before they read it.


thelovelylythronax

I don't think the Grant quote works as an argument in this case because it's framed as him dismissing the dinosaurs as animals as a result of his trauma only to come back around and be all "Oh yay, dinosaurs!" when he's back on the island. At the end of the movie, he saves the people by using his reconstructed raptor larynx to communicate with the dinosaurs. He leaves the film considering them to be the same animals as those whose fossils he's studied. The quote in isolation would work fine for this discussion, but the entire movie's narrative is pushing back at that statement and saying "No, actually. These are the real deal." That's basically the entire thesis of the movie. I really don't like JP3 as a film, but it does have some semblance of an arc in that regard.


Rxero13

The spino is kinda fun though


thelovelylythronax

Yep. Gotta love that roar!


[deleted]

[удалено]


Rxero13

I was only nine when the first film came out, but I get what you’re saying. I still knew enough about certain dinosaurs that they were off, but it was the best we had ever gotten as far as live action dinosaurs! Jurassic World films are taking extra liberties with the more obviously mutant dinosaurs and people are just rolling with it.


vibrunazo

That is kind of a retcon tho. Around the time of the release of the first movie I remember watching several interviews and promo trailers. Where they repeatedly insist on the extensive research and expert review they went through to ensure everything was perfectly accurate as possible. Up to the most minute detail. This was a HUGE part of their promo material that made the movie so sought after in the first place.


RickGrimes30

Well they did do the research and did impliment allot of it.. But not at cost of making a great movie.. All changes was made well aware of the facts


Rxero13

Anyone that knew enough about dinosaurs knew that wasn’t true at all. Even prior to seeing the moves. All the merch with labeled dinosaur names showed us the lie. The IRL reason the raptors were so big was so Stan Winston’s team could fit people into the dinosuits for certain shots. I can’t explain away anything else besides that.


vibrunazo

Maybe, but the point is that the movie was SOLD as scientifically accurate. That's important to remember in the discussion, I think.


paireon

So calling Utahraptors Velociraptors for the entirety of the franchise since Day One is a retcon, then? Not to mention the Dilophosaurus' deal. They may have used accuracy as a selling point but it was bullshit from the start.


EnderCreeper121

The raptors were never Utahraptors they were Deinonychus lumped into Velociraptor because of GSP. Dilo was basically a prototype all yesterday’s spec meant to showcase aspects of dinosaur biology that would be difficult to predict from bones alone. There were alterations to be sure, notably the widening of the theropod heads, but every liberty taken was taken knowingly.


a-Snake-in-the-Grass

What do you mean sort of explained it in the first film? It was an important plot point.


Rxero13

Lotta people are obviously forgetting it


ForBastsSake

Neither star wars or superhero movies influence a public view of science field as bad as jp


Rxero13

Spiderman relies on a lot of “science” to explain him and his villains.


ForBastsSake

And yet you don't get pictures of Spiderman villains in media dedicated to physics and chemistry and such


Rxero13

I totally get what you’re saying, but both the novel and films of the Jurassic series tell you they’re genetically modified and aren’t what real dinosaurs are. It’s always been sci-fi rather than science. Just the mosquito thing was a big load of bull, but a fun idea to make for entertainment


[deleted]

I hate Star Wars because Tatooine's existence doesn't make sense /s


Mael_Str0M69

It was originally the high-tech jungle world of the Kummumgah until the Rakata effed it all up.


TheDarkApex

Dude the amount of times i've seen neckbeards get triggered by a woman being strong because they think it's unrealistic (even though it's not) in something about GODS and MONSTERS but then don't say a peep about said gods moving ENTIRE STARS and then sit their to take their sweet-ass time to explain the biological differences between men and women and then proceed to say "I'm not sexist" but then act like men are better than women because of the way men develop muscles differently than women. Who actually cares about muscles in such a way or as a social standard??? literally having muscles doesn't make you better than anyone, just like how disliking JP/JW dinos doesn't make you better just because you are a Paleo-Purist, who actually sits there and watches gods do utter and blatant COSMIC things and elves fight orcs and demons fight angels and ect. and be fine with that but then get upset but dinosaurs not having feathers and not being accurate or saying "oh women being strong is so unrealistic because acktchually us MEN have advanced muscles so hollywood needs to stop forcing women to be competent and strong because only MEN can do things" But yes it's like who cares if the dinosaurs in JP/JW aren't realistic?? it's fiction, nothing wrong with having personal opinions but acting better or smarter than someone because you like scientific accuracy is utter BULL.


MetaDragon11

I'm gonna be watching and likely enjoying both. Immensely in all likelihood


thelovelylythronax

The original JP trilogy retconned its raptors between every film. Another retcon wouldn't be that new to the franchise, and having reasonably plausible dinosaurs looking and acting as actual animals would've helped cement the thematic role played by the hybrids in the JW trilogy, because the stark contrast would've helped drive the point home. It also would've helped with Fallen Kingdom's attempt at an animal rights-centered narrative. Having a monster-fied *Baryonyx* shrugging off lava both undermines the monstrosity of the hybrids and lessens the dinosaur's status as an animal that deserves to be protected imho.


ImProbablyNotABird

The book also said that the dinosaurs were periodically updated based on new data.


thelovelylythronax

Yeah, iirc book Hammond was very vocal to Wu about having his dinosaurs be the real thing.


DrChickenEngie

^ this!


Brain_0ff

I mean, the first movie had huge amounts of research going into its animals and it really drove the public perception away from the slow sluggish monsters who were just waiting to be killed of by a meteor to fast, agile and intelligent animals. The newer movies kinda just ignored that responsibility… I mean Jurassic World had everything at hand to change their dinosaur designs to something more modern. They could have just said something along the lines of “imagination will always fill in the gaps and the more our understanding of these prehistoric animals progresses, the smaller these gaps become and the less imagination we need“… That would explain their prior designs, as well as the new and improved ones. But they didn‘t do it and made a generic monster movie out of something that could have been so, so much more…


10Exahertz

Exactly my thinking. They clearly did it bc the marketing team told them the scaly beasts would perform better than the feathery beasts. There are so many other monster movies, if I wanted to watch one of those I'd watch a Godzilla movie. The driving point for JP is tht it was accurate for it's time. "See how they move, like a flock of birds" I'm baffled this sub of all places doesn't understand that and is instead arguing that it makes sense within the story. Sure fine the "we can do whatever we want with DNA" thing works internally. But JW isn't an isolated thought bubble if effects the real world and the public's perceptions of dinosaurs. But what about for the purpose of the movie. I disagree that JP was a basic monster movie. Heck it was close to being an outreach piece for paleontologists. It wasn't scary and creepy, it was beautiful and passionate. The triceratops, the herd of sauropods. I mean come on, I don't care if works within the story, it's disappointing


Snowy_Mass

The frustration is the fact that Jurassic Park DID have (with 2 VERY big exceptions...looking at you Dilophosaurus and Velociraptor) far more accurate dinosaurs than other media at the time. The original movie and book did a lot in pushing the image of dinosaurs not being slow lumbering lizards but active bird-like animals. However when it came time for the new World trilogy in an effort to keep nostalgia they kept the 1993 design philosophy instead of adapting with new more accurate models. Now I personally like the new interpretation of the more inaccurate designs highlighting their piecemeal nature as hybrids between dinosaurs, frogs, and many other modern animals that World introduces. Plus as there's a certain enjoyment of older reconstructions going as far back as the 1800's bush gardens iguanadons there's a charm to the 1990's reconstructions. So I'm generally neutral on this issue. I love Prehistoric Planet and am so glad to see a studio attempt this generations Walking With series. I also recognize that blockbuster movie monsters are fun as well. So enjoy what you enjoy and don't let others tell you not to enjoy it.


Riparian72

Those two inaccuracies with the Raptors and Dilo can be explained properly. The raptors were always supposed to be Dienonychus, however one of the books used for research was used groups Dienonychus as a species of Velociraptor. It was an out of date view at the time but some people stood with it, one of them being the original author of Jurassic Park. The dilo is much straight forward. They didn't want another carnivore to be the same size as the raptor as they thought audiences would confuse them so they made it smaller and gave it the frills and venom to make it stand out. The frills can be written off as speculative as well Basically, these dinos have actual excuses for their issues, unlike any of the dinosaurs in Jurassic World.


DastardlyRidleylash

Jurassic World is a part of a franchise that *made its name* off of having dinosaurs that *were* more accurate than the Hollywood standard at that point, though. That's why the first movie did so well, is that it provided a version of dinosaurs that was so radically different from what people were used to ***that was more in line with the science of the time***. It was a huge breath of fresh air in the sea of upright, tail-dragging dinosaur movies that had formed by the 1990's. If anything, JW being more paleo-accurate would've just been an extension of how JP handled itself, and probably has the same effect. People didn't watch Jurassic World because it had scaly dinosaurs, they watched it because of the power of JP nostalgia; it would've done well even if it had the fluffiest and most bird-like raptors possible as long as it was able to appeal to the masses in terms of plot and characters.


christopia86

Pretty sure that Jurassic Park was successful because of the ground breaking special effects. Don't think many people were super hyped for the realism of the dinosaurs


dbabon

As someone who gets to work on real-life dinosaur digs every summer, with paleontologists who fell in love with dinosaurs in the 90s BECAUSE of Jurassic Park (myself included), I would strongly argue that the increased accuracy of the dinosaurs in the original JP was definitely at least part of the hype.


christopia86

OK, but if you fell in love with dinosaurs because of Jurassic Park, you would have had no idea about the accuracy at the time, correct? Don't get me wrong, I think portraying dinosaurs as fast, intelligent, living creatures helped stoke a love for dinosaurs, but the average audience member would have had no idea of accuracy of dinosaurs, it was just a very well made film with groundbreaking special effects to general audiences.


10Exahertz

Many knew they were accurate. Being a kid and being told those beautiful beasts in JP once walked the same earth was pivotal for me loving dinos.


christopia86

I don't remember much buzz around the scientific accuracy, though I was 6 at the time. People were excited that they looked real, but I don't think it's fair to say an average person at the time was aware of the more accurate vision prior to seeing the movie. The realism is part of why the films worked as well, but it's not like people were saying "Finally, a t rex not dragging it's tail!" Or "Oh thank god the included talk about bird evolution.". Given how many people's knowledge of dinosaurs comes from Jurassic Park, including the inaccurate parts, I think it's fair to say the accuracy of the dinosaurs was not the reason people were hyped.


Taran_Ulas

Eh, while it wasn't the thing people were hyped about, JP was the film that put the now very much taken for granted understanding of dinosaurs as active, fast-moving, bird-like animals on the map for the general public. The Dinosaur Heresies had gained some steam for that, but JP was the media that made that the public's view. Part of why JW is regarded with a lot of loathing by Paleontologists and Paleo-minded folks is that it was in the same position that JP was in. It could have updated the public's views on dinosaurs in the same way. Instead they chose nostalgia and justified it with a half-assed throwaway line that 90% of the audience forgot five seconds after it was said until someone tries to critique the designs and then it gets rushed out after a one minute google search. Then they also made the most boring hybrid dinosaur imaginable twice and neither time did it actually feel different from the dinosaurs they already had (Indominus rex just looks like a rabid JW Giganotosaurus with chameleon camo and quills while Indoraptor just looks like a crazed JW Utahraptor who was stuffed in a tiny coffin with my hopes and dreams for this franchise.) Then they combined this with a cliche plot and characters whose writing makes me roll my eyes in annoyance. JW's disliked here not just because its inaccurate, but because they are the only dino media in this day and age with any quality (until Prehistoric Planet 2022) and it is campy cliche dino media that is honestly pretty badly written with only nostalgia supporting it's skeleton.


JerbearCuddles

As a 5 year old watching it for the first time in the mod 90s, I can confirm I didn't give a flying fuck about realism. Hell even as a 30 year old I have 0 issues with the Jurassic World movies. I just love seeing dinosaurs. Lol. Realism or sensationalist action. I just wanna see dinos.


smashboi888

Yeah. The reason for JP's success wasn't the more-accurate dinosaurs compared to most-depictions at the time, it was the stunning visual effects and the entertainment of dinosaurs running around and killing people. The more-accurate designs were just a bonus.


thefinalcutdown

A big part of what makes JP so enduring, imo, is that Spielberg attempted for the first time in Hollywood history to portray them as animals instead of monsters. There’s obviously a lot of Hollywood action liberties taken, particularly with the raptors, but the idea that they’re just animals with animalistic behaviours, hunting prey, abandoning overly difficult hunts, protecting their young, etc. with humans simply no longer being top of the food chain was a pretty revolutionary depiction for its time. I struggle to enjoy JW as much because they keep leaning into the bigger and badder monster tropes, which is boring and predictable to me.


paireon

I love monster tropes, personally, but if that's what I feel like watching I'll watch Godzilla, thank you very much.


Aerisaphunk

But you must know that some of those ground breaking special effects were also ground breaking for paleontology too. Making them move realistically requires a surprising amount of innovation that is still used to emulate certain behaviors. Those amazing special effects were because Spielberg didn't want to do just meh movie monster dinos, he wanted to portray animals and what better way to do that than put a whole lot of research into it


christopia86

Sure, but again, this wasn't why it was hyped, it's why it worked so well.


Leafy-San

I am pretty sure there are in-universe as well as studio reasons for this. For example JW was meant to be an amusement park so they would have made the dinosaurs how the people like/new them and not make tye mlre accurate designs. They also used reptile and amphibian dna so obviously they would look more lizard like. Also changing already existing in universe design would break continuity, for example the trex on jw is the same as jp so changing the design to be more accurate would be weird. Theme and main plot of the movie was that they were meddling and creating non-existent dinosaurs for entertainment so obviously they would use more pouplar designs. There was also a line in the movie from doctor Wu that said that they only wanted more teeth, not accuracy. Also they where creating and using the dinosaurs for militay purposes so they would obviously want to mix and match characteristics to get a better product Even if the story is different, JW and JP still have the same theme, Time and time again humans mess with nature and try to shape it into what they want, so nature messes with them back


MrSoInSo

I agree with what you said especially the part where the dinosaurs aren't supposed to be accurate, but the fucking dominion prologue contradicts it by having dinosaurs with very few minimal differences to their ingen/biosyn counterparts kinda screwing up the notion that the "jp dinosaurs aren't supposed to be accurate thing" I hate Collin trevorrow for doing shit like this, says that he with show accurate dinosaurs *Proceeds to show shrink wrapped lipless fluffy t rex*


Leafy-San

I just ignore the prologue, it has no effect on the story anway. the only possible explanation for it is that Jurassic world/park universe has a different history than ours, and that sounds dumb. Maybe they started production when fluffy t-rex was still thought to be true?


smashboi888

I mean, the first JP film confirmed that Velociraptor was 6 ft tall and lived in North America, so it having a different history from ours has been a thing since the very beginning.


Leafy-San

Wasn't that velociraptor a deinanchys(sorry for the bad spelling) since it was classfoed as a Velociraptor at the time?


MrSoInSo

Wasn't their already a 6ft raptor in north America that lived beside tyrannosaurus called dakotaraptor?


smashboi888

Yeah, but it hadn't been discovered by the time JP1 was made.


paireon

Utahraptor had been though IIRC.


PratalMox

It was a misidentified Deinonychus.


MrSoInSo

The fluffy t rex was suppossbly "debunked"in 2017/2018, and the type of feathers on the t rex is actually accurate if it did have any but it seems like the feathers were spreading through regions of the body that we already suspected/known were scaley.


MrSoInSo

I agree with what you said especially the part where the dinosaurs aren't supposed to be accurate, but the fucking dominion prologue contradicts it by having dinosaurs with very few minimal differences kinda screwing up the jp dinosaurs aren't supposed to be accurate thing. I hate Collin trevorrow


Parethil

Yeah, but I think a lot of people were hoping they'd get better over time, not worse. If they existed in a vacuum it'd be fine, but they've also so massively influenced public opinion that you wind up with stupid things like the woke T. rex article. If you love action movies, then sure, Jurassic Park over prehistoric planet. But if you love nature, animals or dinosaurs (the real things, not the monsters), prehistoric planet all the way.


Aggravating_Living62

At this point I want a Jurassic Park/World movie with Charles Knight dinosaurs.


twoCascades

They are perfectly capable of updating their designs.


HelpyCentral

Of course. They might in future installments, but it makes no sense to magically turn preexistent dinos into their modern interpretations. That's not how any media universe operates. giving Rexy lips will require some explanation that would be far too reaching, all for the sake of appeasing a small fraction of their audience while alienating the ones that wanted to see the old designs return. Do I want more modern interpretations on screen? Hell yeah. Do I think Jurassic World should have redesigned its dinos? Not from the get go at least.


stillinthesimulation

Because it's not the 90's anymore? You can like the movies while acknowledging that the new ones are dropping the ball on keeping up with the science. Hell, the stegosauruses have gone backwards in terms of accuracy.


PratalMox

Speaking as someone who does not like Jurassic World, that the dinosaurs are bad reconstructions isn't actually a serious problem. It bothers me, sure, but I would be willing to let it slide if they were in a good movie. The problem is that they aren't.


AlienDilo

But maybe the lack of care put into the accuracy of the dinosaurs shows the lack of care in general. The creators of Jurassic park really cared about making them ass accurate as possible so they made the dinosaurs act like animal and not monsters. So they looked like animals and not monsters. So the fact that they cared enough to make the animals accurate means that they probably cared about the other aspects too. So when Trevaro says he wants to put as much care into the dinosaurs as Stan Winston, but doesn't care about accuracy then that makes me wonder how much he cares about the rest.


armyprof

This. 100% this.


smashboi888

>The problem is that they aren't. That's all a matter of opinion, though. I greatly enjoyed both Jurassic World films, and it seems that most people enjoyed the first one.


PratalMox

I can only speak for myself here, but I think the Jurassic World movies embody all of the worst aspects of modern blockbusters. They're a pale imitation of legitimately great art, and largely charmless on their own merits.


EnderCreeper121

They can barely even get their own designs right. Every dinosaur they have ported over from JP has been butchered. Like it surely can’t be *that difficult* to just copy paste *the designs you own* without making them all lumpy grey and comb toothed. Like they aren’t just inaccurate to the real life animals, they are inaccurate to their own canon.


EddPW

>That's all a matter of opinion, its really not wether you enjoyed something or not doesnt changed the fact the new movies are poorly written i still somewhat enjoy the first jurassic world but oh boy is that movie a writing mess


smashboi888

>doesnt changed the fact the new movies are poorly written But wouldn't that be a matter of opinion too? I'd argue that if most people enjoyed the film, then most of those people didn't really mind how it was written. But that's just *my* opinion.


Brain_0ff

Whether a movie is badly written or not is objective. Whether or not you enjoy it is subjective.


PratalMox

Bad writing isn't an objective thing. Like I agree that Jurassic World is badly written, but there's no objective way to determine that. It's not possible to do.


stillinthesimulation

wold u say dis sentance is goodly ritten; or bad witing? Objective or Subjective?


PratalMox

It does not adhere to the current grammatical standards of the english language, but does that objectively make it bad writing? The errors are deliberate in order to make a rhetorical point, you could make an argument that writing it properly would be *worse* writing because it would be less effective at conveying it's intended message.


stillinthesimulation

Sure. My point is that we *have* standards for writing for a reason. Intention factors into critique. There are films with writing that is intentionally "so bad it's good," but Jurassic World Dominion wasn't one of them. Yes everything in art is ultimately subjective but that doesn't stop us from applying standards that approximate objectivity so audiences can differentiate between good and bad writing.


PratalMox

But those standards are not and cannot be truly objective.


Otocolubus

I read through the comments and I have to say sir, you are a good man, hope your future days will be amazing!


Brain_0ff

I disagree… you can determine how consistent the movie is to prior entries in the franchise, examine the character interactions and development or consider the amount of plot holes and how they affect the story for example. Admittedly, there are some grey zones within these factors, but not to an extent, where I would call bad writing subjective


PratalMox

> I disagree… you can determine how consistent the movie is to prior entries in the franchise, examine the character interactions and development or consider the amount of plot holes and how they affect the story for example. But you *can't* objectively determine that. Whether or not these are significant to the quality is subjective, and how you determine the quality of these things is subjective. What is an objective truth is difficult to determine observable reality, it is nigh impossible to determine in art.


Brain_0ff

Hmmm… that is a good point. I still think, that bad writing can be determined objectively if it is obvious enough ( for example Reys character in the new Star Wars trilogy), but I think I agree that if it is more subtle, then it is subjective. BUT at the end of the day it is about whether or not we enjoy a movie, not how well it is written


MysticSnowfang

Jurassic World is too... humaney for my tastes and Sir David is a much better person than Chris Pratt.


DefinitelySteveIrwin

What's wrong with Chris Pratt? (Serious question, I don't follow celebs much.)


Riparian72

Besides the controversy surrounding him (which isn't too solid in my opinion), Owen Grady is kind of boring. He reminds me of Star Lord but without the charisma and flaws. Hes just another action hero, nothing special.


Godzilla2000Zero

He goes to a church that that's anti LGBTQ


paireon

Source? Big disappointment if it's the case...


Godzilla2000Zero

Hillsong Church that's what Elliot Page was criticizing about him about but honestly regardless Chris Pratt is awesome and I don't believe he's homophobic.


MeggersG

It's way more than that actually. He goes to and donates to a church that's very loudly anti LGBTQ, he pretty much disowned his first wife and disabled son, and he also gave away his first wife's cat without her permission because he didn't want to help take care of it. To add a slightly humorous note, the cat he gave away was Snowbell from Stewart Little. The guys just kind of a dick. You can defend him all you like and enjoy his acting, but don't downplay the proof that he's also an asshole in real life.


Godzilla2000Zero

That's unfortunate


hi_i_want_two_die

He fucking sucks, not just personality but like in general


Cybermat47_2

But it **did** have mostly accurate dinosaurs for the time it was made. I don’t see what the problem is with the franchise going back to the original design philosophy.


AlienDilo

Because back in the 90s it did. It also had a lower budget so there's no excuse.


Hydratus7

because times change you fucking idiot, JP had decently accurate designs for it's time


insert-profile-name

So you expect a scifi franchise to change the way its dinosaurs look? that will just make everything inconsistent and it will look bad. The T-Rex in dominion being scientifically accurate to today’s standards while being the same individual from jurassic park would look awful. Grow up.


EnderCreeper121

Changing the appearance of old clones = bad Changing the appearance of new clones = good JWD Quetz my beloved, pyroraptor also but to a lesser extent cause ugly comb teeth but he is a funni gremlin. Having newer clones interacting with older ones would be so much better than just sticking with the same mushy grey aesthetic JW has been following up until JWD. Everyone has seen these old design tropes before, do something fresh, JWD quetz is fucking fresh, imagine if they just did sky rat pterosaurs again, it would be boring as hell.


Hydratus7

there is absolutely no reason for the rex to be the same individual from the first movie other than to say "LOOK! REMEMBER THAT? CLAP."


insert-profile-name

There was only ever one rex on nublar. It’s consistent with the storyline, but i get it, jw bad


Hydratus7

they could've cloned another one but truuuue jw is bad


insert-profile-name

will never understand how you expect a sci fi franchise to have accurate dinosaurs 💀


Hydratus7

they started with accurate dinosaurs. why can't they continue it. and if they're gonna be inaccurate can they at least look cool


LB_Good

They aren't complaining that the dinosaurs are inaccurate, they're just expressing how refreshing it is to have some mainstream palaeontologicaly accurate dinosaurs for once.


EnderCreeper121

This, the JW designs are fine, just really fucking stale after nearly 8 years of nothing but JW dinosaurs, having a show with more up to date reconstructions is a breath of fresh air after being stuck in a stale cramped room with one singular franchise practically owning dinosaurs in the public eye.


[deleted]

[удалено]


OkTap2992

Not true - people on this sub constantly complain about how the JP/JW dinosaurs are inaccurate (which even if there are some inaccuracies, it’s a movie - not a documentary & it is explained in the movies that they are mixed with other animals).


kkungergo

Beacuse the book and the movie to an extent intended to be as accurate as possible at the time and presented the dinos in a way never before seen by the general masses. Yet nowdays jurassic world 1 had some dinosaurs less accurate than jurassic park 2. (Tho i still really liked the first jw)


EnderCreeper121

JW 1 was fun, safe corporate fun, but fun nonetheless. The indo fight at the end was fucking bonkers man.


RickGrimes30

Ok first of all.. When the movie came out it was pretty damn close at least to the common knowledge about dinosaurs Second of all both the first novel and the movie says these are not accurate to their real life counterparts, they where genetically designed to look like what people in the 90s thought dinos looked like.. And third.. You know people are going to say the exact same thing 30 years from now.. There is so much we still don't know and probably will never know


razor45Dino

Thats it im making a snafus


hadrosaur-harley

Personally I love both the JP franchise and the paleo-accurate representation from documentaries, but I do have to say that I do still find the accurate side of things way better. Now, it's not because I hate the designs of JP or anything, it's simply that JW single-handedly dictates what the general public thinks dinosaurs were, since 99% of people completely overlook the 'genetic abominations' subplot. If JP has scaly monsters, then to George from down the road they were scaly monsters, or if JP had fluffy trained pets, then they would be fluffy trained pets, if you get what I'm saying. The point is, I love JP but the damage it causes makes me despise it just as much. The issue isnt the movies but their influence, and I will always root for the accurate side of paleomedia any day.


Pernapple

While they aren’t accurate, they are pretty much like classical movie monsters. It’s up to museums and school to teach what dinosaurs really look like. But JP are monsters with the basis of dinosaurs. I’d be like saying dire wolves in fantasy aren’t true to real wolves.


0480196

I couldn't agree more


[deleted]

Reddit would gatekeep breathing if they could.


Azzie94

It's been repeated \*multiple\* times in the franchise, both during the JP era and in JW. These are \*not\* dinosaurs. These are chimeric freaks slap-dashed partially out of samples of dinosaur DNA, made to appeal to the public's general perception of dinosaurs, not what they really looked like. Even the \*first fucking movie\* flagrantly flaunted what the scientific consensus was on dinosaurs at the time to better reflect public expectations irl.


NateZilla10000

Because when the franchise started, they tried their best to be as accurate as they could, with the Dilophosaurus being the creative exception.


Aggravating_Word9481

We are entering a new golden age for dinosaur media, people complained when the first JW came out that the only way the public would ever care about accurately feathered dinosaurs is if they showed up in a jurassic movie or in a big budget documentary. We are getting both! And prehistoric kingdom? Why are we still complaining.


insert-profile-name

Because people cant enjoy things anymore


Wumba_Chumba1246

My only issues with jurassic park is they ignored some info available at the time, and they didn't fix their mistakes. But if you look at them as Frankensteins not dinosaurs its a fantastic series and one of my favorites.


JebWozma

Rexy is fucking 30 years old, she's been here since the first movie they aren't just gonna change her appearance


Wumba_Chumba1246

Rexy isn't my issue. She's pretty dang accurate still. I love her. My issue is with the other dinos. They just ignored tons of stuff with most dinosaurs, especially ones they've added since the first three movies.


MrSoInSo

Yeah the jp rex has a pretty accurate head shape, the same upturned jaw, wide head, some things were stylized like the over exaggerated angry brows and the oversized eyes and of course the lack of lips, but it's not stylized to the point where it barely resembles the real animal like the baryonyx and giganotosaurus.


Wumba_Chumba1246

Baryonyx is mostly recognizable because that's how it's always been depicted by popular media, and when I saw the giga in the trailers for the new movie I was at a loss for what it was. Took me until someone flat out told me it was a giga to figure out what it was.


EnderCreeper121

~~I mean they did, her skull was absolutely butchered in JW and JW FK lmao~~


clangan524

Dinosaur-related content is good. Stop complaining.


insert-profile-name

^this


TheRealBHamorrii

Dinosaur is good


Capta1n_Dino

It's a movie about dinosaurs coming back to life. How do you expect it to be realistic? It's a movie not a documentary. Enjoy it for what it is.


ComputerQueasy6123

They started the franchise with a fantasy twisted wrist dromaeosaur, a pint-sized Dilophosaur and a blind T-rex. Then they stuck with the fantasy dromaeosaurs for going on 6 movies all the while being completely baren of feathers. I hear the argument, but these aren't true dinosaurs folks. Now with that said, Pyroraptor makes me wonder. I was fine with excepting these aren't true dinosaurs in a genetic sense but I'm curious as to how they could explain that one. Plus the new raptors who are also bare of feathers. But I'm extremely excited for the documentary hopefully it'll wow me more than walking with dinosaurs


Th3Blackmann

Its more than once explained that the Dinosaurs aren't 100% accurate.. I will never understand THAT the T-Rex being a human savior THAT is trash


MrSoInSo

It seems like Roberta/"rExY" was just hunting the Raptors in the first movie probably because of competition but I agree, jwfk pissed me off with making the t rex good. Also the dominion prologue contradicts the notion that the dinosaurs aren't supposed to be accurate because the dinosaurs shown in the prologue are slightly edited versions of the ingen/biosyn counterparts.


scallybastard

Reminding everyone that in jurassic world, dr Wu explains that the Dinos are inacurate because they had to fill in the gaps in the DNA and also manipulated their DNA to make then look scarier


Grimbauld

Jurassics dinos are more fun anyway haha


Cinderjacket

A huge part of the plot of JP was that they weren’t making accurate dinosaurs. The geneticists making them didn’t even know the names of what they were creating. If anything, inaccurate but crowd pleasing dinos is way more on theme than making them as realistic as possible


ProfessorMice

JP was about genetically engineered monsters that kinda resembled dinosaurs. It wasn’t a documentary. And some parts are completely made up like Dilophosaurus to reference local Kauaiian wildlife


[deleted]

[удалено]


10Exahertz

They heavily influence public perception of dinosaurs. And they're barely scifi, they're monster movies now.


[deleted]

[удалено]


10Exahertz

1. Marketing team on JW must love ppl like you. They knew that one line about DNA being used to "make em look scarier" would achieve exactly what they wanted. It's not Hollywood's job, yet the first movie had no problem doing that 2. If Godzilla is scifi then that term has no meaning anymore


[deleted]

[удалено]


10Exahertz

Science fiction is supposed to mean : the impact of actual or imagined yet reasonable science on society and individuals. A movie being in space doesn't make it a sci-fi. Neither does a movie using buzzwords like DNA or quantum. The original JP was so accurate it changed the perception of dinosaurs as well as the implications of DNA reconstruction and cloning, interstellar had a paper published for it's accurate rendering of a black hole and displayed space time dilations effects on people beautifully. Blade runner perfectly explored the deepest questions between AI and human consciousness. These are scifi. Godzilla, despite being awesome af, is a Kaiju monster movie, he's a mythological being representing the strife and struggle of the Japanese people, it's not scifi, there's no science and no ponderous implications of said science.


AveBalaBrava

Jurassic park dinosaurs are pretty much like dragons, they are cool fictional animals, there is no need for the to be accurate as long as they don’t pretend to be accurate


sosigboi

Both have dinosaurs so both are good to me, dinosaurs are dinosaurs, automatic win.


Pillar_man_5

It’s not a documentary either


sharkattack85

Man, Jurassic Park is still one of my favorite movies and it was the closest thing to seeing dinosaurs in real life when my cousins and I were kids. Wasn’t it realistic with the knowledge we had at the time?


JurassicJustice

Yeah at the time it was the most up to date media when it came to dinosaurs because Spielberg and Stan Winston worked extensively with the paleontologists they had on the team as consultants to make the dinosaurs look as accurate as possible. Which is why it’s a real salt in the wound that the JW franchise just seems to not care at all and don’t bother trying to make the dinosaurs seem realistic aside from their VFX.


Godzilla2000Zero

Or maybe people just wanted to see other premium dinosaur content besides the Jurassic films especially if the rumors are to be believed the Universal has threatened numerous people of depictions of dinosaurs.


whyamihere1694

It would be an interesting side note in a JW movie for them to attempt to make things more accurate with the updated science. Maybe even just some goofy reference to Velo/Utah rebranding fights in the marketing dept... Perhaps a couple generations of dinos in cooler climates and feathery covering appears, the hybrid DNA likely speeding up the process. I don't think it would end up being worth the screen time but it's neat to think about.


DalaMagala

EXACTLY


BringBackTheDinos

I'm so fucking pumped for prehistoric planet, they got David Attenborough?!?! Favreau?? I'm also so God damn excited for dominion. JW even built in an excuse for them not being accurate. Im pretty sure people bitching about this just want to show off how much they know. They're the annoying guy at the bar. I don't hear SW fans complaining that you can't hear in space because it's a vacuum...


Feeling-Ad-2490

I remember back in the 80s we thought most dinosaurs dragged their tails on the ground. It never made sense but thats how they were shown at the time.


[deleted]

whats the opening scene for the new one about


Twenty_is_here

These people need to understand that the jurassic park/world creatures are fabricated by humans and prehistoric planet shows the world as it was.


Apprehensive_Club352

Dinosaurs good. Dinosaur go roar


Azrielmoha

JP was accurate at that time though. Then JW have the opportunity to updated it's models and tried to achieve the similar realism JP had and they blew it for some cheap nostalgia.


insert-profile-name

If JW updated them it would have looked extremely inconsistent with the older films. would a modern t rex trying to be passed as the same individual in JP not look terrible?


Azrielmoha

Not inconsistent when they literally have the opportunity to come up with an excuse. Just say that more older model are getting sick or dying out as their incomplete genome made them vulnerable to disease as they get older. Now most of them are replaced by healthier and more accurate models. Hell it could be a plot point, let's say the main dinosaur character is an old Ingen Velociraptor, and later it have to face off against it's feathered cousins.


DHMOProtectionAgency

Everyone else has brought up good points about how revolutionary Jurassic Park was at the time and how the series has retconned designs before. But, what if you dislike the movie monster portrayal of dinosaurs that the latest JW tried, while hypocritically talking about the majesty of these animals. You can't have it both ends of these extremes. It also doesn't help that I find the latest JW to be shit


GojiFan1985

JP was fairly accurate for its time, JW somehow made them worse for the most part. I do agree that people comparing inaccurate designs with accurate ones is pretty dumb and annoying, but you can’t really stop it.


Riparian72

I will never understand why people don't realize how much work was put into the first movie. They actually cared back then. The team behind JW don't at all. This video explains it perfectly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz6DJ8ST1wE