Jurassic Park 4's Dinosaurs Will Not Have Feathers - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40191434]There were books?[/QUOTE] they were books first, by Michael Crichton

[QUOTE=Hidole555;40191579]Movies aside, they're both extinct.[/QUOTE]The ostrich still lives on. May as well be a modern day raptor.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40190212]They did, simply google for it.. In fact, birds may have evolved from them.[/QUOTE] They did evolve from them; this is scientific fact. :v:

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;40191620]The ostrich still lives on. May as well be a modern day raptor.[/QUOTE] Really have to be careful around those ostriches man.

Ostrich attacks are no joke.

[QUOTE=Keegs;40191696]Really have to be careful around those ostriches man.[/QUOTE] Nah man, the ones you really need to watch out for are the Cassowaries.

If Jurassic Park 4 stuck to realism than the T-Rex would be fucked. By that I mean people would think it would be really lame. It would still be plenty big and powerful.

A tyrannosaurus with feathers would essentially look like a giant turkey anyways

Yes, because as we all know, Jurassic Parks is an incredibly terrible movie that has no scientific accuracy and that's the only thing which determines a movies quality. After all, Inception is complete crap since you can't have a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream, right guys?

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40190168]Leaked concept art: [IMG]http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/Jurassic-Park-IV.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE] if the movie was this in a cheesy 80s toy-selling cartoon style then i would totally be interested

[QUOTE=abcpea2;40191856]if the movie was this in a cheesy 80s toy-selling cartoon style then i would totally be interested[/QUOTE] Just play Farcry 3: Blood Dragon when that is released. [img]http://i.imgur.com/eHkNlnA.jpg[/img] See it in the background?

i will be very surprised if they can pull off the style without modernizing it in some way, namely giving it horrible characters like those in fc3 that or theyll overdo it with the cheese

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;40191620]The ostrich still lives on. May as well be a modern day raptor.[/QUOTE] Don't they think raptors evolved into eagles n' ospreys n' shit?

[QUOTE=megafat;40191816]Yes, because as we all know, Jurassic Parks is an incredibly terrible movie that has no scientific accuracy and that's the only thing which determines a movies quality. After all, Inception is complete crap since you can't have a dream within a dream within a dream within a dream, right guys?[/QUOTE] wow you're pretty dense there's a difference between basing your movie around a real-life thing and getting it completely wrong and basing your movie around a completely fictional concept that you can actually take artistic liberty with i'm pretty sure you'd think it was dumb if i made a movie about a group of time-traveling Russian friends and I made the Russians all have bright red skin but didn't include any explanation whatsoever for that aspect of my film

wait what, where did you guys get the thing with tyrannosaurids and other bigger dinosaurs having feathers? wasn't that just a dromaeosaurid/smaller dinosaur thing? what researchers say: [quote]They also speculated that feathers may correlate negatively with body size - that juveniles may have been feathered, then shed the feathers and expressed only scales as the animal became larger and no longer needed insulation to stay warm. They based this on the fact that as an object increases in size, its ability to retain heat increases due to its decreasing surface area-to-volume ratio. Therefore, as large animals evolve in or disperse into warm climates, a coat of fur or feathers loses its selective advantage for thermal insulation and can instead become a disadvantage, as the insulation traps excess heat inside the body, possibly overheating the animal. Protofeathers may also have been secondarily lost during the evolution of large tyrannosaurids like Tyrannosaurus, especially in warm Cretaceous climates.[/quote] that sounds logical actually. isn't it funny that today birds unhatch WITHOUT feathers while their ancestors had it the other way around? of course a tyrannosaurus could have some feathers and still look cool tho [img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100610095724/t-rex/images/8/87/Feathered_Tyrannosaurus.jpg[/img] and when it comes to dromaeosaurids, the whole indimitation factor of giant feathered lizards depends on the artist really. i mean this still looks like a raging beast capable of tearing you a few dozen new ones [img]http://bestiarium.kryptozoologie.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/deinonychus-mit-federn.JPG[/img] and this looks like a fucking chicken, it's got a beak and all [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P8_HSHsVPZY/Ty3ICXoIBRI/AAAAAAAAEns/3pkJ04p1Zfg/s400/deinonychus_prey_restraint.jpg[/img] and i'm ready to call bullshit on the wing flapping stability theory because that sounds just overdone, like they thought "oh it has feathers like a bird it must have moved exactly like a bird", christ next they say raptors were capable of flight. why else would they have those huge fucking claws in their hands if not to tear into the side of a huge herbivore and hang on while they bite the poor thing's balls off? geez hoh now i remember that i once spent an hour and a half ranting about this exact thing to my friend

[QUOTE=sedarahC;40190152]This has actually left me a little bit disappointed.[/QUOTE] they're feathers, what the fuck. like it really matters in a movie about dinosaurs being reborn from frog DNA.

I think feathered dinosaurs would be something new and interesting. I personally think they look fucking badass, and no, I'm not in denial. It wasn't how they look that made us fear them in the movie. Heck, they dont even show how they look in the beginning, all we see is this cow being fucking torn apart. That shit was cool, it wasn't the looks that intimidated us, it was the actions of a cold-blooded killer.

I really don't like feathers on my dinosaurs, I grew up with loving and learning about these badass scalie creatures not overgrown chickens, I don't want to watch a movie about ostriches or giant birds killing people I came for giant lizards

Everytime someone brings up Jurassic Park I think of the Raptor Song by TH89 [QUOTE]yo im a dinosaur str8 velocirpator quick to jump up out of the bushes and drop a rapper play god u pay god yo its awful that not even armed and armored ingen jeeps can stop disaster [/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv5okplLajY[/media] Fucking HYPED AS SHIT.

I'm genuinely curious, does knowing that certain dinosaurs have feathers retroactively ruin Jurassic Park for some people? And if not, why are you pissed at this movie for not having dinosaurs for feathers and not that movie? Surely a movie where dinosaurs and using frog DNA to fill in for dinosaur DNA can use a loose enough science to work in that movies universe?

[QUOTE=Joazzz;40192083]wait what, where did you guys get the thing with tyrannosaurids and other bigger dinosaurs having feathers? wasn't that just a dromaeosaurid/smaller dinosaur thing? what researchers say: that sounds logical actually. isn't it funny that today birds unhatch WIHTOUT feathers while their ancestors had it the other way around? of course a tyrannosaurus could have some feathers and still look cool tho [img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100610095724/t-rex/images/8/87/Feathered_Tyrannosaurus.jpg[/img] and when it comes to dromaeosaurids, the whole indimitation factor of giant feathered lizards depends on the artist really. i mean this still looks like a raging beast capable of tearing you a few dozen new ones [img]http://bestiarium.kryptozoologie.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/deinonychus-mit-federn.JPG[/img] and this looks like a fucking chicken, it's got a beak and all [img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-P8_HSHsVPZY/Ty3ICXoIBRI/AAAAAAAAEns/3pkJ04p1Zfg/s400/deinonychus_prey_restraint.jpg[/img] and i'm ready to call bullshit on the wing flapping stability theory because that sounds just overdone, like they thought "oh it has feathers like a bird it must have moved exactly like a bird", christ next they say raptors were capable of flight. why else would they have those huge fucking claws in their hands if not to tear into the side of a huge herbivore and hang on while they bite the poor thing's balls off? geez hoh now i remember that i once spent an hour and a half ranting about this exact thing to my friend[/QUOTE] There's evidence for raptors using their arms to stabilize though. The arms are pretty shit at grasping things in front of them. Their hands face inward, towards their face, so using them to tear would be awkward. Scientists speculate that the raptor uses the wings just like the modern day birds of prey. They would keep the prey pinned under their weight, while staying on the prey using the tail and arms to balance himself. The bone structure of their arms support this idea. Also, there's been a study on those claws. They reconstructed a raptor's leg with a claw, exactly the like real one, and tested it out on a pork belly. It could penetrate the skin, but the claw couldn't tear the flesh open. They then came to the conclusion that velociraptors probably used the claw to penetrate the skin and use it as an anchor, to keep the prey pinned down. Some scientists speculate that the velociraptor or their ancestors could fly. Quill knobs were found on a raptor's forearm, which confirms that the Velociraptor, just like most of their ancestors, did have feathers. However, most modern flightless birds do not have quill knobs. Of course it's possible that they couldn't fly, as that idea does sound quite ridiculous. It's possible that they used the wings to stabilize themselves, for display or to cover their nests while brooding. [editline]7th April 2013[/editline] Then again, Jurassic Park's velociraptors are Deinonychus, which at that time was still called Velociraptor antirrhopus, making it a legit velociraptor, just not the Velociraptor we all know and love.

There needs to be a peacock raptor so when it's approaching people all scary like it can go POOOF FEATHERS MOTHERFUCKER and that would make anyone brick themselves.

[QUOTE=DarkSiper;40191085]I'm more concerned about the intelligence given to dinosaurs on these films.. I mean a raptor shouldn't be much smarter than a chicken.[/QUOTE] Actually, raptors were one of the smartest dinosaurs to have ever existed. Of course, that's not saying much but paleontologists think that they were actually smart enough to solve problems. I suppose that's kind of required if a pack of them is going to take down prey more than five times the size of a single raptor.

[QUOTE=Shibbey;40193274]There needs to be a peacock raptor so when it's approaching people all scary like it can go POOOF FEATHERS MOTHERFUCKER and that would make anyone brick themselves.[/QUOTE] There is, sort of: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomingia[/url]

[QUOTE=joost1120;40193104]informative stuff[/QUOTE]well shit, i stand corrected. at least i wasn't completely wrong about the tyrannosaurus tho. i'm also not dismissing the wing stabilization theory entirely, but i'm not buying the idea of them actually flapping their forearms for stability. that's just too much now i want a new CG dinosaur documentary similar to Walking With Dinosaurs, but this time with feathered raptors but shit, flying raptors? that probably would add +50 to their Terrifying skill [QUOTE=joost1120;40193104]Then again, Jurassic Park's velociraptors are Deinonychus, which at that time was still called Velociraptor antirrhopus, making it a legit velociraptor, just not the Velociraptor we all know and love.[/QUOTE]ye, that's why i posted pics of the D-nychus

Good. It wouldn't make any sense for the dinosaurs to suddenly have feathers, unless Hammond had a third fucking island or something, where he made a few dino's with feathers for some weird reason.

[QUOTE=Joazzz;40193342]well shit, i stand corrected. at least i wasn't completely wrong about the tyrannosaurus tho. i'm also not dismissing the wing stabilization theory entirely, but i'm not buying the idea of them actually flapping their forearms for stability. that's just too much now i want a new CG dinosaur documentary similar to Walking With Dinosaurs, but this time with feathered raptors but shit, flying raptors? that probably would add +50 to their Terrifying skill ye, that's why i posted pics of the D-nychus[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure some species of Dromeosaurs were capable of flight. The Micro raptor, for one, was capable of gliding or even flight. Raptors flapping their wings for balance might have something to do with the origin of flapping in birds. The joints and muscles might have evolved to further help flapping, along with increased wing span, up to the point where they could glide or fly short distances. Of course, these highly evolved raptors stopped being raptors and turned into dinobirds like the Archeopteryx. The Archeopteryx, for example, was a "bird" capable of flight, but it had a lot in common with raptors, such as the skull structure, the large extendable claw, sharp teeth and the claws. I'm not saying the Velociraptor evolved into the Archeopteryx, as that would mean that Velociraptors are capable of travelling back in time, but they might've evolved further into what is now a bird. Or not. Who knows. The T-rex probably had feathers though. Multiple Tyrannosaurs have been discovered having feathers. Even a large species, which is weird, considering that large animals generate more heat and have a hard time cooling down.

[QUOTE=Jorori;40193323]There is, sort of: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomingia[/url][/QUOTE] Ah, the usual Paleobiologist fallback "They were used for display!"

Not all dinosaurs had feathers. It's mostly limited to theropods. Not all theropods had feathers either.

[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40192049]wow you're pretty dense there's a difference between basing your movie around a real-life thing and getting it completely wrong and basing your movie around a completely fictional concept that you can actually take artistic liberty with i'm pretty sure you'd think it was dumb if i made a movie about a group of time-traveling Russian friends and I made the Russians all have bright red skin but didn't include any explanation whatsoever for that aspect of my film[/QUOTE] So why can't you base your movie around something that exists (existed), and still take artistic liberty? Is Inglorious Basterds a bad movie because WW2 ends in 1944 with Hitler dying in a burning movie theater?