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

You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you removed feathers, and made it unrealistic, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you wanna sell it.

What we need is Therizinosaurus. [img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100510015940/dino/images/b/bd/Therizinosaurus_cheloniformis.gif[/img] [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Therizinosaurus_scale.png/220px-Therizinosaurus_scale.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Bradyns;40191667]They did evolve from them; this is scientific fact. :v:[/QUOTE] People never believe me when I point out that phylogenetically alligators are closer to sparrows than to lizards.

One thing that bothered me about the first movie, at the very beginning there is a huge long speech about how dinosaurs were more like birds. All the bones were the same, the layout was the same and all that jazz.... Then 30 minutes later, "We used a frog to put the DNA in the dinosaur." YOU JUST FUCKING SAID THEY WERE CLOSER TO FUCKING BIRDS AND YOUR "GENIUS" ASS SCIENTIST USED A FROG? You idiots, hiring morons to work in your lab.

[QUOTE=Aredbomb;40191785]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.[/QUOTE] T-rex only had feathers as a child, as they grew they lost their feathers

When they say dinosaurs have feathers, do they mean all of them? or just the bird shaped ones? I cant imagine a Stegosaurus would have feathers, its more like a lizard.

[QUOTE=Squad;40195836]One thing that bothered me about the first movie, at the very beginning there is a huge long speech about how dinosaurs were more like birds. All the bones were the same, the layout was the same and all that jazz.... Then 30 minutes later, "We used a frog to put the DNA in the dinosaur." YOU JUST FUCKING SAID THEY WERE CLOSER TO FUCKING BIRDS AND YOUR "GENIUS" ASS SCIENTIST USED A FROG? You idiots, hiring morons to work in your lab.[/QUOTE] They used frogs because some frogs can change sex. It allowed them to explain how males showed up.

[QUOTE=An Armed Bear;40195722]What we need is Therizinosaurus. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Therizinosaurus_scale.png/220px-Therizinosaurus_scale.png[/img][/QUOTE] I keep wanting to pronounce that thing's name "There is no Saurus". God that is one weird looking motherfucker. Someone needs to hurry up and find a complete skeleton so we can determine how accurate that rendition of it is.

[QUOTE=P1X3L N1NJA;40195930]When they say dinosaurs have feathers, do they mean all of them? or just the bird shaped ones? I cant imagine a Stegosaurus would have feathers, its more like a lizard.[/QUOTE] Some ornithopods (Like Psittacosaurus) had proto-feathers on their tails; and it's speculated that those, theropod feathers and the "hair" pterosaurs had have a common origin.

[QUOTE=mugofdoom;40195548]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?[/QUOTE] I'll let wikipedia explain it [quote=Wikipedia]Artistic license... is a colloquial term, sometimes euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact, alteration of the conventions of grammar or language, or rewording of pre-existing text made by an artist [B]to improve a piece of art.[/B][/quote] Inglourious Basterds was arguably made better by its made-up ending because the entire movie was made up and that was the way Tarantino felt it needed to end. Nothing is added, however, when Jurassic Park's dinosaurs simply don't have feathers. There's no real reason why they shouldn't; surely a filmmaker would find it easy enough to turn a feather-covered dinosaur into a horrifying monster for a movie. Also unlike Inglourious Basterds, where everyone knew the outcome of WWII going in, plenty of people are still completely unaware that many dinosaurs had feathers, so if anything, you're really taking away from the movie by perpetuating the idea that they didn't in 2013.

[QUOTE=Hidole555;40191579]Movies aside, they're both extinct.[/QUOTE] The second one is literally a photoshopped picture of a bearded vulture, which is a close relative to dinosaurs and eats bones.

It's like I'm the only guy that thinks dinosaurs still look terrifying with feathers. Without them they just look cool

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;40195895]T-rex only had feathers as a child, as they grew they lost their feathers[/QUOTE] Not what I meant. If it escaped it would go for the slowest, easiest prey it could find, provided there were no dead animals around to scavenge. This doesn't exactly sound as dangerous as it's Jurassic Park portrayal. On the other hand that "don't move" thing wouldn't be relevant anymore so I guess there's that.

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;40195895]T-rex only had feathers as a child, as they grew they lost their feathers[/QUOTE]I always thought a baby duck-down t rex would be the cutest thing ever.

I was never really into dinosaurs but its funny seeing how much this changes peoples world view on them. I was thought dinosaurs were similar to crocodiles or komodo dragons but the lack of feathers would explain why since a bird without feathers does look pretty scary and fucked up.

What kind of moron goes into a film about cloning dinosaurs and putting them in a theme park for scientific accuracy anyway?

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40190168]Leaked concept art: [img]http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/Jurassic-Park-IV.jpg[/img] They better not do to jurassic park what they did to indiana jones.[/QUOTE] Man, Dino Riders was the shit when i was a kid.

[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;40196332]I'll let wikipedia explain it Inglourious Basterds was arguably made better by its made-up ending because the entire movie was made up and that was the way Tarantino felt it needed to end. Nothing is added, however, when Jurassic Park's dinosaurs simply don't have feathers. There's no real reason why they shouldn't; surely a filmmaker would find it easy enough to turn a feather-covered dinosaur into a horrifying monster for a movie. Also unlike Inglourious Basterds, where everyone knew the outcome of WWII going in, plenty of people are still completely unaware that many dinosaurs had feathers, so if anything, you're really taking away from the movie by perpetuating the idea that they didn't in 2013.[/QUOTE] there is a reason though. they made the first movies before knowing dinosaurs had feathers. now, featherless is part of the canon.

[QUOTE=Naaz;40197073]I always thought a baby duck-down t rex would be the cutest thing ever.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/r5iausa.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Arc Nova;40195895]T-rex only had feathers as a child, as they grew they lost their feathers[/QUOTE] Actually, that hasn't been proven yet. Considering other adult Tyrannosaurs from around the same size did have feathers, scientists think the adult T-rex might've had feathers too. We can't know for sure, not with the current fossils. We need to find fossils in finer stone, so we can actually see the quill knobs, just like how they identified feathers on other fossils. [editline]7th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=imptastick;40195757]People never believe me when I point out that phylogenetically alligators are closer to sparrows than to lizards.[/QUOTE] Well, Crocodilia and lizards both first appeared 220 million years ago. Most Crocodilia stayed relatively the same over that large period of time. Considering they both came from a single ancestor, crocodiles would be rather similar to that ancestor. While lizards did evolve a lot, they certainly didn't turn into dinosaurs and then into birds again, which would make a crocodile closer related to lizards than to birds.

[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] You seem to be forgetting that Jurassic Park was made in the early 1990's and the whole feathered dinosaur theory didn't really have it's feet yet. They were working to prove it at about the same time, but by then it was too late, and the look of the dinosaurs in the films was established. Also if you're going to bitch about the dinosaurs not having feathers, why not also attack the fact that most of the featured dinosaurs were in fact [I]not[/I] from the Jurassic period and the misrepresentation of some of the animals, such as the size of the velociraptors. It's a pretty silly thing to be so critical of an early 90's dinosaur action movie arguably aimed towards children. [editline]bananas[/editline] I mean, the movie was never meant to be a discovery channel special or anything.

[QUOTE=joost1120;40197514]Actually, that hasn't been proven yet. Considering other adult Tyrannosaurs from around the same size did have feathers, scientists think the adult T-rex might've had feathers too. We can't know for sure, not with the current fossils. We need to find fossils in finer stone, so we can actually see the quill knobs, just like how they identified feathers on other fossils.[/QUOTE] There are some recent finds of large Tyrannosaurid (Tarbosaurus I think it was) skin impressions showing smooth skin like a Rhino or an Elephant. But these are fairly localized impressions from the neck area if I remember right, it's entirely possible the adults had a patches of feathers elsewhere.

[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 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] eagles have claws to hold onto fish and they can fly

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;40197505][img]http://i.imgur.com/r5iausa.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Oh look it's Gerry's great ancestor.

[QUOTE=joost1120;40197514]Actually, that hasn't been proven yet. Considering other adult Tyrannosaurs from around the same size did have feathers, scientists think the adult T-rex might've had feathers too. We can't know for sure, not with the current fossils. We need to find fossils in finer stone, so we can actually see the quill knobs, just like how they identified feathers on other fossils.[/QUOTE] wow you're really trying to ruin dinosaurs for me aren't you, i'm trying to maintain at least some level of denial here and you're just crushing it. just because the tyrannosaurus and co. were such large motherfuckers i refuse to believe that. damn you and your fat dumb manatees to the deepest circle of Hell[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;40197804]There are some recent finds of large Tyrannosaurid (Tarbosaurus I think it was) skin impressions showing smooth skin like a Rhino or an Elephant. But these are fairly localized impressions from the neck area if I remember right, it's entirely possible the adults had a patches of feathers elsewhere.[/QUOTE]yes yes yes thank you there's hope for me yet!!! [QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40197828]eagles have claws to hold onto fish and they can fly[/QUOTE] that's because eagles are goddamn birds and not giant feathered lizards, their wings are much larger in comparison to the rest of their body than for example Deinonychus' wings were so they can obviously generate the necessary lift to fly. god, what's next? diplodocus with feathers?

[QUOTE=Nidhogg;40198094]Oh look it's Gerry's great ancestor.[/QUOTE] Who is gerry?

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;40197505][img]http://i.imgur.com/r5iausa.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] That's not a T rex.

[QUOTE=Joazzz;40200001]wow you're really trying to ruin dinosaurs for me aren't you, i'm trying to maintain at least some level of denial here and you're just crushing it. just because the tyrannosaurus and co. were such large motherfuckers i refuse to believe that. damn you and your fat dumb manatees to the deepest circle of Hellyes yes yes thank you there's hope for me yet!!! that's because eagles are goddamn birds and not giant feathered lizards, their wings are much larger in comparison to the rest of their body than for example Deinonychus' wings were so they can obviously generate the necessary lift to fly. god, what's next? diplodocus with feathers?[/QUOTE] If they did have feathers, they likely had them along the spine or on the forearms. True feathers are only known to be present in Coelurosaurs as well, other Dinosaurs like Sauropods, Hadrosaurs and Ceratopsians had scales like reptiles. Yutyrannus is big news right now in terms of large Theropods having feathers, and honestly if feathers make an animal less scary I would like to direct your attention to the Cassowary, and they don't even have teeth or functional forelimbs. The [Url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutyrannus_huali#Feathers]Wiki page on Yutyrannus[/Url] pretty much hits the nail on the head regarding feathered Tyrannosaurs though. Current findings don't suggest feathers in Carnosaurs (Allosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus) and Ceratosaurs (Ceratosaurus and Carnotaurus). HOWEVER, Triceratops may have had large quills almost like a porcupine though this is still being worked on (Triceratops specimen named 'Lane'), other Ceratopsians like Psittacosaurus are known to have had long bristles along the top of the tail which were neither hair nor feathers, the rest of the body was covered in scales. [QUOTE=Jetblack357;40202916]Who is gerry?[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/C9bZQ8n.jpg[/img] He doesn't have his baby stripes anymore though.

[QUOTE=RR_Raptor65;40203011]If they did have feathers, they likely had them along the spine or on the forearms. True feathers are only known to be present in Coelurosaurs as well, other Dinosaurs like Sauropods, Hadrosaurs and Ceratopsians had scales like reptiles. Yutyrannus is big news right now in terms of large Theropods having feathers, and honestly if feathers make an animal less scary I would like to direct your attention to the Cassowary, and they don't even have teeth or functional forelimbs. The [Url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutyrannus_huali#Feathers]Wiki page on Yutyrannus[/Url] pretty much hits the nail on the head regarding feathered Tyrannosaurs though. Current findings don't suggest feathers in Carnosaurs (Allosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus) and Ceratosaurs (Ceratosaurus and Carnotaurus). HOWEVER, Triceratops may have had large quills almost like a porcupine though this is still being worked on (Triceratops specimen named 'Lane'), other Ceratopsians like Psittacosaurus are known to have had long bristles along the top of the tail which were neither hair nor feathers, the rest of the body was covered in scales. [img]http://i.imgur.com/C9bZQ8n.jpg[/img] He doesn't have his baby stripes anymore though.[/QUOTE] I have been watching your Gerry videos. I've come to the conclusion that Gerry kicks ass.

Hands down the best part in the book version of JP: The Lost World was the part with the chameleon dinosaurs. I remember that when they announced the movie, I was so stoked for it, because that part would be creepy as fuck. Then the movie came out, and they didn't include those dinosaurs whatsoever. It was such a huge "WHY" moment, I just couldn't believe it. The book also had a lot of interesting views on instinct/genetic vs. memetic memory. How the whole dinosaur ecosystem on the island was falling apart, because the dinosaurs were bred in a machine, and as such they lacked a lot of the skills/knowledge they would've learned from their parents. The movie ignored all of that and just went "hurr look more dinosaurs!".